Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Northumberland County Council and a resident of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Is the Minister aware that across the political spectrum on the council we are united in the view that this is a strategic road and should not be competing with local money? There has been considerable confusion. The Minister said that the local board made a decision around which there was considerable confusion. In Northumberland County Council we are trying to regenerate the area to ensure that the communities are sustainable. The route is vital and must be improved if we are going to achieve those objectives.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that road rage is very common against cyclists? Only a few days ago, I was abused and intimidated when passing between a white van and a 4x4 in the King's Road. Could the Minister consider further campaigns to encourage cyclists and to remind drivers to "think bike".

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on securing the debate. It is both timely and important. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police recently suggested in his Dimbleby Lecture that we should have a debate about policing issues.
	I attended an FBI conference a couple of years ago at which one of the delegates was Belgian. He started by saying that in Heaven, the cooks are French, the police are British, the lovers are Italian and the Germans organise everything. He continued that in Hell, the cooks are German, the police are French, the lovers are British and the Italians organise everything. Although that is a sweeping generalisation, there is a grain of truth in it. I took pride in his saying that in Heaven the police are British. We have a lot to be proud of in our police service, as faulty as it may be in certain areas.
	I go back well over 40 years, when I joined the police service. It was a very different police service—and a very different public then. We often hear about the lack of police presence on foot on the streets. There is a reason for that—a fairly simplistic one. In pubs and clubs, people often ask me the reason why there seemed to be more police officers in the old days. In those days, police officers were not required to work an eight-hour shift. I recall being a village policeman—the television programme "Heartbeat" is a good example of what I am talking about—when the officers all came into the office at nine o'clock in the morning and perhaps were still there at midnight. Many noble Lords will have had the same experience. That does not mean that the officers were working 24-hour shifts, but they were doing, what we called, detached beat work. They turned out when they were required and made their presence felt in the village, town or community at appropriate times. They might see the children to school, they might see them home at lunchtime, and they would certainly be there when the pubs turned out.
	In the late 1960s, the Police Federation—I was then a member—quite rightly secured the right of officers to have an eight-hour continuous tour of duty. When one takes account of leave and other factors, 5.4 more police officers are required to replace one village constable. That is the key to why there appear to be fewer police officers on the streets. To return us to where we were, we need an increase of something like five times the number of officers, which economically is not viable. I mention that because I am often asked about numbers and visibility.
	The noble Viscount is quite right to say that the service changed its policy and started to put officers in cars. When I was a young constable, there was only one car for the whole division. If you arrested someone in the town centre of Jarrow, where I was stationed, you had to find a way of getting the man back to the police station. In essence, you walked him back; you were very fortunate if a vehicle came to give you some assistance. Times change and clearly that does not happen now. We have vehicles, but, where possible, we must encourage officers to communicate with the public. That is probably the key point. In this country, we police by consent, and consent means communicating and talking to members of the public.
	Last year, I had the privilege of giving a lecture in Switzerland, where I met a retired Scotland Yard officer—and I am pleased to see that we have an ex-commissioner speaking in the debate. That retired officer is now in his 80s, but many years ago he was a detective. He said that one of the main sources of arrests was stopping and searching. As a plainclothes detective, he would probably stop and search 26 to 30 people in a shift. Nowadays that may be looked on as unacceptable, but his instincts told him who to check and who to stop. He was not being discriminatory; he just had a feel for who should not be in a particular place at a particular time. As a result, he had many successful arrests through stopping and searching.
	To a great extent, I believe we have lost that. Officers now are a little worried about stopping and searching for obvious reasons: they may be accused of victimisation or harassment. I suspect that we need to encourage officers, where appropriate, to carry out more stops and searches, particularly when we are concerned about knife crime and firearms. We need to encourage officers and not discourage them. The Macpherson inquiry was mentioned by the noble Viscount. In some senses that acted as a deterrent. It made officers worry about being accused of racism and all the other things that we read about. We need to speak out more and to give the police support where we can and not criticise too often. The police service is made up of officers who represent the community and all the faults of the community are in the police service as well.
	We also have to deal with risk assessment. Senior officers now have far more problems than I had as a commander. I would act on instinct and send officers into situations in a way that perhaps would not be possible now, because of the requirement to make a risk assessment. We see senior police officers being accused, charged and disciplined for making the wrong decisions. It is extremely difficult at times. We saw the tragic case recently in which the police stood back and did not go in to assist two ladies who had been shot—noble Lords will have read about it. The police even prevented the medical services from going in, not through callousness, but because the senior officer had made a risk assessment. He did not know whether the gun was still at large and he would personally have been under threat of prosecution, or at least disciplinary action, if he had made the wrong decision and some of his officers or the ambulance crew had been injured as a result. We should consider that when we criticise the police.
	The police make mistakes. I have certainly had my brushes with senior police officers since I retired. I think of the Tony Martin case and cases like it. When the police attend the scene of an incident, they look at the thing in the round and, particularly when a burglar or person on the street who has potentially committed a crime has been injured, they quite often interview and in some cases arrest the householder. That is absolutely ludicrous. The police have discretion; there is nothing to prevent them from inquiring into the circumstances and determining whether appropriate force was used. In my judgment—and I have said so—they do not necessarily have to arrest the householder, take him to the police station, formally interview him and even, in some cases, charge him. Very rarely is a conviction secured in these circumstances, because juries have common sense. They say that the criminal who was injured when he was burgling the house was probably the author of his own misfortune. Any sensible person would say that.
	I implore the police to use a little common sense when investigating these things, because even if the case does not result in a conviction, householders and the public generally will be very concerned that they have been subject to arrest and detention in the police station. Of course, that makes people worried about defending themselves. The process starts with the police. As with many things, the police are in a position not to send a case to the Crown Prosecution Service. The police now are not acting alone; they work in partnership with many other organisations.
	I look very carefully at amalgamations. I lived through the amalgamations of the 1960s and 1970s, to which the noble Viscount referred. That was a traumatic time for police officers. People do not like to give up their little fiefdoms, which is understandable to some extent. My judgment is that the time is right for the police to be reorganised. Strategic forces are exactly what they say they are—strategic forces. In my view, the change will not affect policing on the ground one iota. If you talk to the average person in the street, I think that you will find that he is not interested in and probably does not know where the police headquarters are. His concern is the policing in his community, which is done at the level of a local commander of a basic command unit, usually of superintendent or chief superintendent rank. Those are the guys or women who deal with the community issues; they liaise with the local council and with the other agencies in the area. So the location of the headquarters is not really relevant.
	The big advantages of having strategic police forces, as I see it, are the economies of scale from training together, providing resources to tackle terrorism and all the rest that HMI set out in its report recommending that forces should have more than 4,000 officers to be viable for dealing with organised crime and terrorism. Therefore, I welcome the proposals. I think that perhaps the change is being carried out a little hastily; there is something in that argument. The police did not have a lot of time to consider the alternatives, but I think that, now that the process has started, it should continue. As I said, I welcome the change towards having larger strategic forces. I do not want a national police force for the reasons that the royal commission set out all those years ago, in 1960. It recommended that we should not have a national police force because such a force would make it much easier for political control to be exercised over the police service.
	We have a proud tradition of policing in this country, valued throughout the world. Whenever I travel abroad, people are interested in the British policing model. Many places try to copy it, and we provide a lot of training to other countries on policing issues. That is something we should be proud of. When the new arrangements come in, we will still have 10 or 12 police forces. Again, political control will not be possible unless you manage to control all 12—I would suggest that it is very difficult to control 12 independently minded chief constables.
	I welcome the Government's proposals and again congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on securing the debate.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. It is always helpful to hear his views on policing matters because of his distinguished service. Like him, I would like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating the debate, which is very timely.
	I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, in his place. He knows full well that I am a great admirer of the police and am certainly not in the business of dishing out criticisms. But I have some important points to make today.
	The police do a splendid job. For instance, we should all congratulate Kent police on the skill and professionalism they have shown following last week's £50 million robbery. However, there are occasions when actions of the police cause public concern. The best way to keep those occasions to a minimum is to have effective public accountability. No sensible person advocates interference with the operational independence of the police, but a number of controversial police actions in recent times would not have occurred had the police chiefs concerned been more formally accountable to the local communities—perhaps through police authorities that are directly elected.
	I think that the public are entitled to question whether those in command have got their priorities right when a minister of religion is prosecuted for preaching that homosexual acts are wrong, while those assaulting him for expressing those opinions are not even cautioned. I think the public are entitled to question the wisdom of police resources being used to question a bishop of the Church of England for comments he had made on the same subject, and to ask how it can be right to spend police time investigating alleged anti-Welsh remarks made by Anne Robinson at the very time when another police force was saying that it had not the resources to deal with cases of shoplifting. I think that Londoners are entitled to question why recently there have been so many arrests of peaceful demonstrators, including a woman doing no more than read out the names of those killed in Iraq.
	I do not know whether in those instances senior officers were trying to implement what they thought were government policies and priorities or were following Home Office advice—following, in particular, advice in a booklet called Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service which was recently published jointly by ACPO and something called the Home Office standards unit. Whatever the explanation, the fact that those incidents happened surely strengthens the case for a larger public input into policing, for strengthening the powers and composition of police authorities, and for less rather than more Home Office interference. I am sorry to say that in the main the changes in the offing point in exactly the opposite direction—to less public input and more political interference.
	If one were starting from scratch, of course one would not plan for 43 police forces. On the other hand, Mr Blair, when in opposition, was surely right when he said that,
	"a wholesale amalgamation of the smaller police services . . . will remove local policing further from local people".—[Official Report, Commons, 05/07/94; col. 273.]
	He said that quite a long time ago, back in 1994, but it was blindingly obvious then and it remains blindingly obvious today. If you create a police force that is responsible for an area twice or three times as big as the area covered by each of the forces it replaces and you increase the size of the police authority from 17 to, say, 23, many local communities, some perhaps with special policing needs, will be completely unrepresented on the authority and there will be less public accountability. There cannot be any doubt about that. It is equally obvious that a few regional forces are far more easily controlled by the Home Office than are 43 forces. The fact that the Home Office relishes the prospect of more control is clear from the terms of the Police and Justice Bill. I invite noble Lords not to forget that in this debate. When that Bill becomes law, it will give the Home Secretary sweeping powers such as he has never had before to order chief constables how to run their forces.
	I shall deal briefly with a few of the other concerns. The first is money. According to the Association of Police Authorities, the present proposals will cost more than £525 million and could work out at double that when all the associated costs of police restructuring are taken into account. The Home Secretary has offered just £125 million towards the cost of restructuring, but I am told that even that will not be new money. Most of it will either have to be borrowed or come from the existing police capital budget. It is no wonder that some forces have already put all their planned investment on hold.
	The Government talk vaguely of economies of scale, but they have been unwilling or unable to give any estimate at all of such savings. I therefore ask the Minister to explain why the end of this process will not be cuts in services or higher taxes or both. Was the chairman of the Cleveland Police Authority right or wrong when he said that, in Northumbria, the council tax precept could well rise by as much as 40 per cent?
	There is also concern at the speed with which the Home Office is proceeding. Announcing on 6 February his decision about the north-east, the West Midlands and Wales, the Home Secretary gave the chief constables and the police authorities only a few weeks to respond. In default of agreement, as we all know, the whole thing will be wrapped up in four months by an affirmative order. The HMIC report Closing the Gap certainly did not advocate that sort of timetable. It is worth remembering that when restructuring took place in the 1960s, it did so after a royal commission and about two years' debate. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs was surely right to comment in its recent report:
	"the very short timetable . . . has limited the scope of the debate and impeded consultation with the police forces and police authorities. Furthermore this has removed the possibility of full consultation with the public".
	In the police and in police authorities, there is widespread opposition to what is afoot. Only one in three of the amalgamations which the Home Secretary proposed earlier this month has been approved by the police authorities involved. Lancashire and Cumbria have agreed a merger in principle, but there is no agreement in the north-east, where the chairman of the Cleveland Police Authority has described the Home Secretary's proposals as,
	"ill-judged, deeply-flawed—and exactly the opposite of what local people want".
	Cheshire has decided against merging with Merseyside. West Mercia, in expressing its opposition to being embraced in a monster regional force, has demonstrated in its submission that it is well able to develop both protective services and neighbourhood policing at no additional cost to taxpayers in the force area.
	I do not believe that the public have any liking for this business; they certainly do not regard it as anything like a top priority. With less than one in four crimes detected and street crime rampant, they do not want reorganisation. What they want, as the noble Viscount pointed out, is the police spending less time filling in forms, meeting Home Office targets and taking account of performance criteria, and more time out on the streets. I feel that, in his haste, the Home Secretary may have botched this exercise. The least he can do now is slow down a little so that at least people will feel that their concerns have been considered properly. He should get the Treasury to agree that the costs of restructuring are properly covered so that no cuts will be made to existing programmes and no additional burdens will be placed on the shoulders of the long-suffering council tax payer.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I too begin by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on securing this important debate today. He and I enjoy talking about policing, and his long experience as a magistrate and police authority member in Hampshire have illustrated his great knowledge of, and continuing interest in, the policing service of our country. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Minister back to the Government Benches. We have missed her very much.
	I begin by declaring my interest. I was a member of my local police authority for 20 years, and I chaired it for almost eight years until 2001. I was also a member and deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities. I sat on several national committees, including the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Advisory Board, and I was a member of the National Crime Squad Service Authority—itself an amalgamation of regional crime squad committees, one of which I also sat on and which is shortly to be superseded by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. Finally, I was a magistrate for 16 years, and I am still on the supplemental list for north Yorkshire. I make no excuse for using this debate today to concentrate on the proposals for the future of policing. I shall therefore concentrate mainly on the merging of many police forces into what the Home Secretary calls strategic forces, but also on other changes proposed in the Police and Justice Bill, which will shortly receive its Second Reading in the other place.
	Many years ago, when I first joined my county's police committee, I well remember the then chief constable's words as he battled to persuade us to spend a huge amount of money on our first computer. He said:
	"It will make paperwork obsolete".
	I know that police officers will agree that that never happened. Since those days, policing has been in a state of constant change. First there were computers that took up whole rooms, then there were massive road-building schemes, which changed the face of traffic policing for ever. Police officers did not wear protective vests, carry state-of-the-art batons, or wear the plethora of necessary paraphernalia that they are expected to wear now, let alone have first-class quality communications to aid them. No one had heard of CS spray or imagined that so many of our police officers would be armed. The use of DNA in crime scenes and automatic fingerprint recognition were but dreams. So it is appropriate that we look more closely at how policing should "fit", in modern parlance, into our fast-changing, technocratic and unstable world.
	The driver for the changes that we are likely to see shortly in our policing service comes about as a result of an interesting and important report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, HMIC, indicating how fit for purpose the service is for the future. It makes grim reading. It implies that,
	"changes must be made not only to the structure, but the whole configuration of policing",
	to deal primarily with what is known as level 2 crime. This type of crime deals with cross-border issues, usually of organised crime and major incidents. Apparently, we no longer have the ability to deal with that level of crime within most of our local forces. As we have heard, the basic command unit, BCU, usually commanded by a chief superintendent or superintendent, focuses on level 1 crime, local criminality and volume crime, and simply does not have the capacity to deal with more serious types of crime. One wonders how the police have possibly managed to hold things together for so long, or how managers within the forces have done so.
	One would have thought that in order to address those concerns, a huge information and consultation process with the public would have been essential. That is not so. The HMIC report was handed to the Home Secretary on 13 September 2005, just six months ago. Within a few days, the Home Secretary had made up his mind. He wrote to police authorities on 19 September and gave them but three months, until 23 December, to decide the future shape of policing. The Home Secretary wrote to them all again on 15 December, saying that only police authorities which volunteered to merge their forces by this deadline would receive some money for doing so, if they indicated to him, by that date, that they were willing to merge.
	Police authorities—the statutory bodies that are charged with setting the budgets for and strategic direction of their local police forces on behalf of the community and are responsible for their forces' continuous improvement—had but a few weeks rapidly to contact each other and decide their futures. They had little time even for involving those for whom policing is of the utmost importance—their local communities, local councils, the voluntary sector, crime reduction partnerships and so on. I maintain that the timescale for implementing these momentous changes has been ludicrous.
	This is a wholly unacceptable way of moving forward an extremely complex and expensive organisation, which costs us all a phenomenal amount of money. How do we know that these hastily put together new arrangements will work? In the private sector, you would never find captains of industry completely redesigning their multibillion pound businesses in that space of time. How will this be achieved in that timescale? On what basis does the Minister claim that a complete restructuring of the service will improve things for the majority of people in this country?
	Let us turn to the costs of this restructuring. These are estimated to be between £400 million and £500 million in total, a figure based on the draft submissions by forces and authorities on 23 December. Since that time, the Home Office has had these business cases analysed by independent consultants. The consultants' final figures, however, have yet to be discussed with partners. Despite these projections, the Home Office has made available only £50 million in capital funding for 2006–07 and £75 million in capital funding for 2007–08. That is a huge difference—at least £275 million.
	So how should our police forces look in the future if we accept that change must take place? There are a number of models, of course, which HMIC's report addresses. It is right to highlight the problem of level 2 cross-border crime. A gap always existed between local forces, which focus on level 1 volume crime, and the national structure, which focuses on level 3 and serious and organised crime. It was ever thus. I vividly remember the angry discussions we used to have about the level of support we had or otherwise from the regional crime squad and later the National Crime Squad. It felt to us in the local force that the national body wanted to deal only with exciting headline-grabbing cases and treated local police forces with a measure of disdain. Rightly or wrongly, that is how things were perceived. Do not take my word for it—it was the leaders, the professional officers of my force at the time, who complained the loudest. The truth is that criminality is all around us all the time. The top criminals have to live somewhere among us; and who is better placed than the local force to monitor them? They may need help from the specialist forces, and so far they have received that help. It is called mutual aid; and it has benefited all the forces in our country on many important occasions without us having to merge into huge regional forces.
	When necessary, the National Crime Squad has been called in to deal with those large and time consuming operations and been highly successful, which I hope will be the same for soccer. But the crime that affects the majority of our communities is local volume crime, which is what police officers have to deal with day in, day out. Neighbourhood policing is rightly popular with the public, but there must be a danger that redirecting focus and resources into mergers means that neighbourhood policing will suffer and that public confidence will be lost. That is doubly so if public expectations are raised, and the new proposals seem to encourage everyone to assume that neighbourhood policing will solve all our problems. But we know that if regional forces, or even amalgamations of forces, do not have a good local accountability base, they will simply not function properly.
	I maintain that should North Yorkshire police be forced into regionalisation between all the forces in Yorkshire, the focus will be on the huge conurbations of Leeds, Sheffield and Hull. My guess is that officers will be pulled out into those areas, thereby denuding the vast numbers of small villages and towns that go to make up the geography of my region, which will be paying a great deal for a level of policing that they could only wish for. Why can we not build on the already excellent exchange of information, training, procurement, air cover and so on that goes on now between forces? Why do we need to throw everything up in the air at huge cost to us all without considering possible alternatives?
	Why cannot some forces merge, if that is what they want, and leave others to work out the best way that they can deal with capacity and provide better value for money? What about a federation of forces, as prescribed by the Police Federation of England and Wales? The Home Office argues that new structures of accountability can be built around basic command units, but that is not the point. Using BCUs as the basic unit of accountability would be too distant from local communities to provide meaningful discussion of neighbourhood priorities, and too fragmented to provide meaningful scrutiny of decisions taken at force level. Loss of force level accountability equals increased centralisation, a problem highlighted further in the new Police and Justice Bill. That Bill proposed powers for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order or regulation nearly all the main elements relating to the membership and functions of police authorities. Currently that is enshrined in primary legislation, which sets out the balance of power between the Home Secretary, chief police officers and police authorities. That is known as the tripartite relationship, and its purpose is to ensure that there is equilibrium between central and local power. The Bill will undermine that balance and lead to a greater concentration of power at the centre, as surely will restructuring.
	Of course we recognise that policing has changed because of the terrorist threat, but that will not be dealt with by local police forces, which will still be expected to shoulder the responsibility for the vast number of crimes, petty and otherwise, that will be committed day in and day out by local criminals. It is simply unacceptable for the Government to use the threat of terrorism as an argument for dispensing with open and democratic debate about such a fundamental change in police delivery. The debate should be informed by an independent peer review of the HMIC paper, together with a full risk assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of any mergers, and an assessment of the consequences for other agencies. There must be an opportunity for academic input and a resolution of genuine concerns about the solidity of HMIC's arguments.
	I too pay tribute to the thousands of men and women who look after us and who often put their lives in danger to protect our democracy. We owe them more than we can say. During my years of involvement in policing matters, I have come across the most harrowing incidents, dealt with in a professional and calm manner by police men and women who should never have to witness such carnage. It is the frontline troops who take the flak and who have the most difficult jobs to do. We must not let them down by siphoning off valuable resources to implement a restructuring so vast that no one will know to whom they are ultimately responsible. The real answer to that lies with the people of this country. If we ask them, they will tell us loudly and clearly, "Don't mess with our policing structures"?

Lord Imbert: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for putting down this most important and timely Motion for debate and for setting the scene in his comprehensive opening address. It is timely for two reasons. The first is the proposal, as has already been mentioned, that some of the smaller forces should amalgamate with others to make fewer, but larger police areas. The second reason, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, is that Sir Ian Blair called in his recent Dimbleby address for a public debate on what sort of police service we want. That question is apposite to all citizens: those who are policed in this country.
	I realise that I follow most erudite and experienced speakers and I shall attempt not to go over their ground again. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, is a former senior police officer; the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is a former Home Secretary; and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has experience as a member of a police authority and the vice-chairman of the Association of Police Authorities. As a simple bobby, I wonder how I can follow such erudite and experienced speakers, but I shall do my best and try not to go over their ground.
	Regarding amalgamations, big is not always beautiful. I pray that size is not the only criterion by which the future structure of the police is to be decided. That would be unwise. Although some amalgamations are inevitable in the quest for better value for money and enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of service, I hope that any changes will be decided on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with the communities and the police authorities of the areas concerned.
	I fully support an examination of the structure and role of the police in this country. I hope therefore that the debate will contribute in some way not only to the question, "What sort of police service do we want?" but also to the question, "What kind of police service do we need?"
	Since Sir Ian called for the debate, the Independent Police Research Foundation, the think-tank of policing, together with the Oxford University Centre for Criminology, has picked up the gauntlet and organised a forthcoming conference to try to identify what the Government and the police themselves think they ought to be doing and how they should be doing it. Any national debate must examine the use of lethal force by a largely unarmed service in a liberal democracy, balancing the question of how the police should deal with suicide bombers and armed criminals against our long held tradition of civil liberties. Most importantly, the debate should take note of what the public expect the police to do on their behalf.
	Ben Whitaker, a lawyer and erstwhile Member of another place, asked in his study, The Police in Society, what we want the police for. He wrote:
	"Only by resolving the conflict in values between liberty and law enforcement can we determine the paradox of the police's position in the future".
	Those are very wise words.
	So far as the role of the police is concerned, the first two commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, Rowan and Mayne, set out the objectives and role of the new police as follows:
	"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime"—
	that is absolutely right so far—
	"the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed".
	Punishment of offenders is not the responsibility of police.
	In the late 1980s, when the police of London also were asking the question, "What sort of policing do you want?", a capital-wide survey was commissioned to find out what the London public expected police to do and how they wanted them to do it. The public's unequivocal response was that they wanted firm policing for those who broke the law, but fair and friendly policing for the law-abiding: firm, fair and friendly.
	Further London-wide consultation resulted in a new mission statement—we called it a Statement of Our Common Purpose and Values—which explained the role, objectives and style of policing sought by modern-day Londoners. In September 1989, in response to public demand, the ethos of the Metropolitan Police was changed from force to service, but, as has already been mentioned today, times have again changed dramatically since then, when the suicide bomber had yet to appear here. The modern mission statement of the Metropolitan Police now begins with the words:
	"The purpose of the Metropolitan Police Service is . . . to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law".
	The final paragraph includes the exhortation:
	"We must strive to reduce the fears of the public, and, so far as we can, to reflect their priorities in the action we take".
	Their priorities are good neighbourhood policing.
	Just one or two officers out of a workforce of more than 30,000 described the concept of service as opposed to force as "a soft option", initially failing to see that to arrest an armed and dangerous criminal is to provide a service to the law-abiding public, and that it is just as much the job of police to facilitate peaceful protest by accompanying marchers, even though one may have found their views odious, as it is to quell a violent demonstration.
	The police are the servants of the public and not their masters. Policing the area between liberty and licence has never been easy. This year, hundreds of officers have already been assaulted and injured while on duty. Many have been women officers, of whom one was shot dead and two are still in intensive care. Like many thousand members of the general public, I pay tribute to those ordinary men and women who are doing an extraordinary and, not infrequently, life-threatening job. As has already been mentioned, police will sometimes get it wrong and, because of the nature of the job we give them, often dramatically so. That understandably becomes headline news.
	It was Pascal who said:
	"The problem of the human race is that it consists of human beings . . . The makers of the law, the breakers and keepers of the law all have one thing in common: they are all human beings".
	The police, albeit human beings, must continue to serve the public within the laws, as enacted by Parliament. I make a plea to the legislators to make such laws understandable and acceptable to the public, so that they will want to live within them, and, indeed to refrain from making too many.
	I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said about his definition of heaven. I have a similar, but slightly different, definition:
	"Heaven is where the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian"—
	that must be why my wife is going on holiday to Italy soon—
	"the engineers are German, the police are British and it is all organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the cooks are British, the engineers are French, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss and it is all organised by the Italians."
	In case anyone should think that is racist, it comes to me from the owner of an Italian restaurant, who has it pinned up on a board. The moral of the story and definition is that, although there must be changes, do not rush to make them without careful thought and genuine, meaningful consultation. To put it another way, we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, this absolutely fascinating debate was introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I feel somewhat reticent to speak, given that my knowledge is confined to only one area. I will stray only very briefly from that area, which is road policing, something that is generally swept under the carpet and ignored by both police and public, until they become involved. I took my class one police certificate in the early 1960s. I still go out on traffic patrol on a regular basis. I still take advanced driving courses. Last weekend I was invited to a specific course for senior investigating officers; unfortunately, I could not attend.
	In the report on police force amalgamations, Closing the Gap by Denis O'Connor, roads policing is considered, briefly but importantly, as a key and protected police service. Such observations seem to be at odds with the general attitude the Government and ACPO have shown to this vital policing role in recent times, which I shall touch upon later. I would not wish this debate to exclude careful consideration of how to ensure that roads policing is given proper recognition under the overall impact proposed by these amalgamations.
	Last Wednesday I went out on patrol from 6am to 5pm. It was a very quiet day, but the previous day there had been two fatal collisions. Had those people died in a railway or aeroplane crash, they would have made newspaper headlines, but these were mere road deaths, so nothing was reported.
	Chief police officers have systematically stripped the roads policing structure of resources in order to meet other Government objectives and targets. Sadly, road safety and maintenance of the rule of law on our roads is not one of those priorities, except perhaps when death and serious injury are at issue. Am I being controversial if I say that enforcement cameras only catch motorists exceeding the speed limit and do nothing about the driver with excess alcohol in his system, dangerous driving, or the driver wanted for offences that could range from the mundane to the serious?
	We witness more and more resources being poured into neighbourhood policing teams, to the exclusion of other key protected services, for which road policing is an ever tempting source of officer supply. There is a clear parallel here with community policing, which fell into decline in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, precisely because only a snapshot of the broader spectrum of the tasks undertaken by officers was recognised and valued. There are concerns from RoSPA, PACTS, RoadPeace and others about the future and direction of roads policing.
	The ACPO vision document for workforce modernisation alludes to Asda accomplishing recent success through a complete programme of organisational change of both their workforce and business structures, highlighting an eightfold increase in share value between 1991 and 1999. Does this presuppose that ACPO wishes to model the future of the police force on the operations of a major retailer? It seems absurd that policing should be compared with buying and selling such commodities as tins of beans. If Asda has a line that does not work or make a profit, or is too costly to sell, it can ditch it; does the same rationale apply to roads policing?
	How will the Government provide assurances that roads policing is delivered as a protected service under the new system of amalgamated forces? If, following mergers, some chief constables are not persuaded that roads policing is important, or believe that the role can be carried out by other agencies, will they, under financial pressure, be compelled to shed the task completely? I wonder, idly, if the Department for Transport is being set up to take greater ownership of road traffic enforcement. As they have invested £800 million in HATOs over a 10-year period, are these people going to be given further powers on the basis that police officers should focus on the strategic aim of denying the criminal the use of the road? That is significantly different from delivering the road safety message, or traffic law enforcement.
	The motorway network now benefits from the overt operation of these highway traffic officers. What is the policy when HATOs identify breaches of traffic law? Do they summon the assistance of other agencies, such as the police or VOSA? Is it envisaged that they will ever enforce road law with powers to stop similar to those currently available only to constables in uniform and certain authorised staff of VOSA? There is much confusion in the eyes of motorists as to what HATOs can and cannot do, and the apparent communication overlaps and underlaps—if such a word exists—between other agencies. Due to an enabling clause in the Traffic Management Act, more power could be extended to HATOs. Could my noble friend confirm that the Government have no such intention?
	About 18 months ago, Caroline Flint, then Minister in the other place, said HATOs would release a number of roads policing officers for other posts and, in any event,
	"any operational police officer can enforce traffic legislation, as appropriate, when an offence is being committed. The increased number of officers on any general beat duties will enable increased and swifter action against breaches of roads law".
	I would love to see an officer on foot patrol, chasing along a street, trying to stop a vehicle being dangerously driven at 70 miles per hour. To be serious, such comments fail to understand the sheer weight of demand on operational officers and the lack of training in order to enforce such laws. Those police officers providing roads policing in England and Wales are highly trained, dedicated, professional people with a vast range of abilities and skills. The general public respect them and regard them as effective. Enforcement of traffic laws, apart from speeding offences, is in decline. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is becoming more commonplace and a real cause for concern. We must ask ourselves how effective the roads policing officer is who randomly and spontaneously pulls over a vehicle, almost by instinct, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mackenzie, for something a non-traffic trained officer would not necessarily notice. This might lead to an arrest that otherwise would not have been made.
	ACPO and the Government might argue that ANPR is the panacea to these problems, but it still will not detect drink and drug-related driving offences, construction and use offences, seatbelt wearing offences, provide a visible presence, or, indeed, just assist and advise the motoring public.
	A roads policing officer is a police officer first and a roads policing officer second; he is there to uphold the law in so many ways that will be encountered.
	I should like to provide some food for thought for my noble friend. First, the new powers of arrest exclude those disqualified from driving. While that in some cases is surmountable, the police no longer have the power to enter property to effect arrest, which includes vehicles. Secondly, evidence is rising on the problem of drug driving, and there is a need for legal clarity and simplicity in enforcement. Please consider removing the requirement to prove impairment. Thirdly, roads policing enforcement relies so much on safety camera funding. It is vital that the police have access to that funding under the new arrangements. Local authorities are already eyeing those funds which, if successful, would have a detrimental effect on roads policing.
	Finally, ask an astute criminal whether he would drive a vehicle known to be of interest to the police on ANPR. The reply would be, "I wouldn't be that stupid".

Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, in my turn I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on securing and so ably introducing this highly topical debate. I also feel very privileged to take part in a debate in which so many experts have already spoken. The debate is topical because matters of law and order are always at the forefront of the public's mind, and topical because only a month ago there was an extremely lively Opposition day debate on police restructuring. It is topical, too, because the Home Secretary is about to begin laying forced orders for mergers in certain areas of the country. But it is also topical in that the reaction to the Government's chosen methods of achieving a changed police organisation are surfacing in the week that we see the publication of the Power report, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—a report whose leitmotif is that people feel that they have no say or part in the democratic process.
	There must be broad consensus that a new look at the structure and organisation of policing is due. It is some 30 years since the last major reorganisation and, since then, crime has become more organised, more mobile and more international. There is self-evidently an increased threat of terrorist attacks, and there have been huge changes in society. There is broad agreement within this House and among the public that the ability of the police to provide the so-called protective services dealing with murder, terrorism and cross-border crime needs to be strengthened. There seems disagreement about whether that strengthening should be achieved by merger—indeed in some cases it seems to be forced merger—or by federation, as seems to be the view of the Association of Police Authorities.
	There is certainly anxiety that larger forces will be less accountable and less accessible. What cannot be denied, however—and there seems to be a consensus on this matter, in this House today—is that the way in which the Government have gone about achieving this change, in haste and with scant regard to local views, has been counter-productive to say the least. Instead of arriving at useful and locally acceptable solutions by consensus, the Government's approach has caused local upset, given the impression that they do not know how things work currently and, in the words of the Power report, has reinforced the view of people that their,
	"disquiet is about having no say".
	No one would pretend that the current pattern of 43 separate forces owes its existence to logic, rather than to historical accident and the consequences of a number of local government reorganisations. But neither should anyone pretend that the process of achieving change, so far anyway, has been in the best tradition of involving communities in decisions about their future. The Home Secretary received the HMIC report on 16 September last year, and within three days he had written to authorities and forces saying that he accepted the findings, giving them three months—in other words, a deadline of 23 December 2005—in which to submit a business case. He gave them three months in which to plan changes to a 30 year-old system. Of course, events proved the initial reaction right: no authority or force was able to submit a final business case, or to volunteer to merge by that date. We have been told that there has been extensive consultation, but I am not sure with whom that consultation has taken place. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten the House on that matter.
	During this debate, we have had many vivid examples from around the country about the effects of restructuring. I add an example from East Anglia. In our case, the Home Secretary made no secret of his preference for a merged force based on the current "East of England" so-called region, which encompasses Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, and Bedfordshire. Those of your Lordships familiar with that part of the world will immediately grasp the difficulty of policing an area which stretches from Epping in the south to Wells-next-the-Sea in the north, and of embedding credibility, accountability and accessibility in such a force.
	The Home Secretary's preference found no favour but, eventually, the following attitudes emerged. Norfolk would accept a merger with Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Cambridgeshire, on the other hand, did not want a merger, but a looser federation retaining its own cap badge and county allegiance. To prove the point, it has justappointed a new chief constable. Suffolk, on the other hand, would prefer to merge with Norfolk and Essex; unkind tongues suggest that that might be because Suffolk would lie in the middle and thus attract the smart new super-police headquarters that would ensue—obviously there would have to be one. Essex, on the other hand, has rejected any idea of a merger, as it considers itself large enough to go it alone. Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire seek other alliances. So far, Suffolk, but not the others, has published a business plan. I suppose that, with all those things considered, it is not surprising that the deadline of 23 December was missed.
	There is a host of other, practical considerations which, if they had been thought out and properly presented by the Government in making these proposals, might have helped their case. Not least are the financial implications. Norfolk will not be the only police authority this year to have had to break official guidelines by imposing a precept—in its case, an increase of 5.9 per cent—thus attracting the possibility of capping. Not far from the authority's mind, no doubt, will have been the financial implications of a merger, if that is what is finally achieved. According to the Association of Police Authorities, there will be a gap of some £400 million between the set-up costs of the new arrangements as the association calculates them, and the funding that the Government seem prepared to offer. I realise that that always happens with local government and police authorities, and so on. But it is clear that the public will be a touch reluctant to foot the bill for a reorganisation which many will see as making policing more remote and less accessible than it is now.
	Also, newly merged authorities will encompass areas which hitherto have paid a lower police precept than they will have to pay under an equalised precept. To anyone seeking to explain this to the losers, rather than the gainers, in any area, I would say, "Don't even think about trying". It would also be a waste of time to advance the argument that savings accrue from mergers. That flies in the face of all local and national government experience over at least the past 50 years, and possibly for centuries. If the purpose of the whole reorganisation is to strengthen the role of the protective services, how much of the money to be spent on the exercise itself would be better spent on extra policing? I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House more detail on the financial implications than she was able to do, understandably, in the House on Tuesday.
	I am bound to say, on accountability, that it is a fairly difficult concept even with the way in which police authorities are organised now, but at least people can identify with a county or a slightly larger organisation than they would be able to in the case of the south-west, for example, where there might be an authority spreading from north Gloucestershire, which is closer to Scotland than to the tip of Cornwall.
	The whole episode has a number of regrettable aspects, not least that the Government, by their handling of the matter, have missed the opportunity to have the involvement and the interest of the public—not to mention the police establishment—in the need to regroup and modernise police organisation to meet the new crime challenges that the country faces. With less haste and more concern for local circumstances, the Home Secretary might have had co-operation from police authorities instead of the deep reluctance that he now faces, not to mention the muddle and uncertainty. He would have been in a position to give more financial detail, reassuring authorities at the precise moment that they set their precepts. Had he been prepared to involve the public a little more, the hands of the authorities themselves would have been strengthened.
	The Government's aims, in their desire to make a police structure fit for the challenges of the 21st century, should be supported by everyone. Yet in their approach, alas, they have missed the opportunity to involve our citizens, to whom these matters are of consuming interest—and for which, of course, they pay. However, it may still not be too late.
	I feel sure that Ministers will have read carefully the Power report, published earlier this week. That independent report seeks to explain how it is that, when people have more politicians than ever before in this country's history—and more opportunities to vote than ever before, what with devolution and the development of the EU—they still feel that they have no say. The report states,
	"It is about a belief that even Members of Parliament have little say because all the decisions are made by a handful of people at the centre and then driven through the system".
	It is still not too late for the Government and the Minister to indicate that this is not the impression they wish to leave in the minds of the public about how they have handled this important re-organisation, which is vital for the future of our country.

The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for introducing this debate I should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police, where I have responsibility for royalty and diplomatic protection. It was also a pleasure to hear one of my former commissioners speak today. While my future career prospects no longer depend upon agreeing with him, I did so in almost every respect.
	Few mission statements survive contact with 200 years of organisational development, and rare is the corporate performance indicator that seems as relevant in the 21st century as it did in the 19th. Thus, when the first commissioner defined the primary role of police as preventing crime, and the protection of life and property and public tranquillity as measures of success, he showed acute and enduring insight. But while those principles guide us still, the operating context of policing has changed profoundly and today is more complex than ever, with the risks to operational officers painfully self-evident. Part of that complexity derives from the relationship between national, regional and local policing, how it is to be delivered and by whom. This, I believe, is today's greatest challenge for my service. How do we respond to serious organised crime and terrorism while retaining the spirit of localism in policing, so greatly valued and so fundamental to its overall success?
	Organised crime groups increasingly dominate the criminality most threatening to our national interest. Sophisticated, well resourced and operating across force boundaries they have a growing understanding of law enforcement techniques, use elaborate counter- surveillance techniques themselves and complex money-laundering arrangements. The scope of their criminality and capacity for extreme violence and intimidation made the case for the Serious Organised Crime Agency, soon to be operational, which will link intelligence investigation and intervention and provide a single point of contact for international partners.
	However, that national response to organised crime cannot be detached from other aspects of law enforcement and must link effectively with local policing. Organised criminality has loose structures with its roots in local crime where criminals learn from dysfunctional role models. Even when operating at a national or international level such criminals are, as another noble Lord mentioned, still based in local communities. Recognising these interdependencies and managing relationships with local police and neighbourhood communities will be a key determinant of the new agency's success.
	A parallel challenge exists in counter-terrorism. With its indifference to mass casualties, its international capability, unconventional structures, disinterest in negotiation—and with suicide as a feature of attack planning—the UK today faces what is perhaps the first truly global terrorist threat. While, in scale and complexity, the threat is still revealing itself we have already seen offenders entering this country from abroad to commit attacks, UK citizens involved in terrorist offences overseas, and now British citizens conspiring to commit acts of terrorism here. We have seen alongside that, in the efforts of the emergency services and the public, an inspiring contradiction to the prevailing cynicism which assumes that people always act out of their narrow, short-term interest.
	With intelligence often fragmentary and hard to interpret, those investigating such offences must carefully balance public safety, community confidence and evidence gathering. Moreover, while the level of collaboration between international agencies is unprecedented—and co-operation between the police and intelligence services is unique internationally—we need to consider how police capability can further be improved. In particular, we need to question honestly whether we have sufficient resilience if faced with sustained demand on the scale of July last year.
	At present, New Scotland Yard has the only substantial capability for terrorist investigation; yet it is clear that we face a threat not uniquely metropolitan in nature. While the Association of Chief Police Officers sets strategic direction for counter-terrorism policing, we do not presently have a national structure for investigation linked to regional investigative capability, which can in turn connect with local communities. Nor are police lines of accountability perhaps as clear as they might be. Does the Minister agree that further progress needs to be made in that area?
	Finally, I turn to the proposed restructuring. If larger strategic forces are to be created—and there is a case for some change—people may, instinctively at least, feel a greater sense of detachment unless some compensating measure exists to make them feel otherwise. Now, I accept that a community's strongest affinity lies with its local police commander, but some of these new force areas could be very large with, for example, Avon and Somerset—as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, mentioned—potentially becoming become part of a force whose northernmost point is nearer to Scotland than to the Cornish coast. That is a striking example, as nobody wishes policing to be seen as the agency of a distant power.
	That compensating measure to which I referred could, I believe, come from the development of neighbourhood policing models which provide greater responsiveness and accessibility. In London there are already over 250 of these safer neighbourhood teams—as they are called here—aligned to ward boundaries, working with partner agencies and with guidelines preventing their abstraction for other duties. Early results are promising with evidence of environmental, economic and social gains as well as reductions in crime. But nothing will deliver effective neighbourhood policing if public engagement is absent at the design stage. If, therefore, in the context of force re-organisation, neighbourhood policing is to be an effective compensating measure, local communities need to understand the bargain that they are being invited to strike. We need to be really confident, in more than an aspirational sense, that police and partners can deliver.
	This is the most radical proposed reorganisation of the police for decades, with—albeit latterly—a developing and quite proper level of scrutiny at a professional level about cost benefits and arrangements for governance and accountability. I hope that collaborative arrangements short of force mergers will not be discounted if the balance of interest recommends it, and that final judgments will be the product of critical analysis rather than the application of some rigid formula.
	But long-term success, together with sustainable progress against terrorism and organised crime, depend on a public who understand the case for change and do not feel disengaged or misled. I feel that more needs to be done at all levels to involve them—a point made by a number of noble Lords. For if larger, seemingly remote forces neglect the diverse context in which policing takes place, public confidence will erode and policing at all three levels will be diminished.

Lord Elton: My Lords, although I was for a year Minister for police at the Home Office, I am the least-qualified person here to speak, because the Home Secretary at the time was Willie Whitelaw. He made certain that I had so much other responsibility to discharge that he could carry on doing it himself. It took the arrival of my noble friend Lord Hurd at the Home Office to begin to change that attitude.
	The police live in difficult times, not only for all the reasons that have been deployed, but because it is now 30 years since the great recruiting bulge took place in the mid-1970s. Consequently, a considerable turnover of personnel is in process. The Centrex prediction of the recruitment necessary to maintain a national level of 136,000 to 138,000 policemen runs at around 9,500 per annum until 2012. That throws great responsibility on those who train the recruited policemen. In passing, I should say a word of commendation, to the extent that the police have managed to absorb that considerable turnover of new blood into the system without weakening it.
	However, one must look at how training is carried out and that is being changed. The principal agent is Centrex. 'I was startled to discover that in 2004–05, its budget was cut by 17 per cent—in real terms it was 26 per cent, because apparently they lost the ability to reclaim VAT in that year. I apologise for not giving the Minister warning, but can she say what the budget is now and what it is projected to be for the next financial year?
	Training is changing. It used to be centred at places such as Hendon and Cwmbran. I cannot resist saying that it is exactly 23 years to the day that, in my temporary position as Minister for the police, I visited Cwmbran. I was impressed by what was going on there, but more by what happened when I was about to leave. I was detained by the officer in charge, who asked if I could wait for a minute or two more—I had finished my sandwiches—because they were not quite ready for the next thing. I wondered what that might be. Suddenly the double doors burst open and a great column of singing Welshmen came in bearing a cake and singing, "Happy birthday to you, Lord Elton". The coincidence of dates was such that I could not forbear from mentioning it. I still tingle with gratitude.
	What surprises me about Centrex is that it is not a validated teaching organisation, which means that, first, it does not have an academic institution overseeing the way that it carries out its instruction, which could be valuable to it; secondly, those who receive qualifications through Centrex do not have accredited qualifications that, if they change careers, they can wave in the face of a future employer. That needs urgent attention and is recommended in the HMIC report on Centrex—recommendation 6.2, I think.
	As training is brought into local police forces, the difficulty of obtaining an equal standard throughout the country increases and may be relevant to the present hunger to enlarge police forces. I would have thought that a Centrex is needed that can deliver in every force a standard unit of training and interoperability between police forces. I know that in his contribution to the Politea report, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that one need for an overall, national force of some sort arose from the difficulty of pursuing criminals from one area to another where the equipment and the training were not interoperable. The Army manages to be interoperable between all arms. Any regiment can fight next to any other regiment, or be interpolated with it without difficulty, because they have common equipment, training and language. That should be achievable without amalgamation.
	Whatever the merits of amalgamation, I share the affront felt by my noble friends and others throughout the House at the rapidity with which, and the manner in which, the current proposed amalgamations are being carried forward. I asked the noble Baroness a Starred Question, just a couple of days ago, regarding what consultation had been carried out. Her reply was:
	"My right honourable friend Hazel Blears, the Minister who has led on the matter, has consulted widely up and down the country to try to ensure that we properly understand people's needs".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 128.]
	My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked her for more on that. She repeated, that,
	"my right honourable friend Hazel Blears undertook a series of consultations with stakeholders and others".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 129.]
	The Minister said that she was happy to write, and I hope that she will. I do not take exception to not yet having received a letter, but I look forward to it. But that is not the way to consult—sending the Minister out to obtain information. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Minister spoke almost exclusively to police forces and police authorities. We live in a democracy. As has been said again and again, "The police are the servants of the community"—those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert—not of the state and not of the Government. That is desperately important. It touches the whole fabric of our nation. I and most noble Lords here are old enough—although I congratulate the Minister on not being anything like old enough—to remember how Europe went under a series of dictatorships; in Spain, Italy, Germany, the Russian Federation, Austria, not Portugal, and France when it was overrun. The agency of despotism was always the police, the Gestapo, OGPU or whoever. Once a government gets control of a police force, it is a lethal weapon against democracy.
	From 1688 and beyond we have realised that that must not happen. At one time we would not have a standing army. That is now under control. It is an instinct in the British people that the policemen are there to protect them, not to keep them in order on behalf of a great central power. Every increase in the size of forces is an incremental step towards the bogey that we all instinctively fear. If you then set beside that fear, which already has our antennae quivering, the Police and Justice Bill that will come from the other place, which devolves from Parliament to Secretaries of State the detail of not merely the composition but the responsibilities of police authorities, you begin to see that the hand of the state is reaching right down into the policing system.
	We already have examples where the police apparently—and it may be coincidental—have started behaving in a political way on certain issues such as homosexuality. My noble friend Lord Waddington quoted another quite different example of the ladies who read out names on the Cenotaph war memorial in Whitehall. We suddenly have people springing to the defence of No. 10 against two, not quite middle-aged women.
	What my noble friends say in distrust of what is being done is well founded in instinct. It is also well founded in democratic politics. It would seem elementary sense to take to individual voters a decision such as this, which affects so many of them, to get their opinion and to win their support. This has not been done and that is a great pity.
	Turning from amalgamation, because it is a subject much better discussed by others already, I ask the Minister one other question. I see that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary has, over the past two years, changed the basis of annual inspection to what is now called "baseline assessment", which works on a three-year cycle. That is pretty important, and I would hope that we might hear at least her initial views on whether the change is resulting in a more effective inspection, and clearer insight into what is going on in Government and the Home Office. I ask the Minister and her colleagues to be aware of civil servants, who are in power always and who regard Parliament as an obstacle to legislation. They are urging that bigger is better and units of policing should be closer to the hand of the Home Secretary. They should not.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I join all of your Lordships in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Tenby for introducing this debate and for doing so with his customary skill and wisdom. Like him, I find it surprising that it is so long since this topic has been debated in your Lordships' House, especially as the role and the position of the police have changed, and are changing, so much.
	Although it is as I gather his birthday, I must start by contradicting the noble Lord, Lord Elton, absolutely. I, and nobody else, am the person by far the least qualified to speak in this debate. I have absolutely no specialist knowledge of the topic and I speak as an ordinary member of the public with, no doubt, many misconceptions shared by members of the public. From this position of outside ignorance, what are the changes in the roles of the police which seem to be the most significant? First, as many noble Lords have said, the nature of much of major crime has become vastly more complicated. Furthermore, much of major crime is international and, as my noble friend Lord Tenby said, it knows no boundaries. Much of it is also highly technical and complicated, involving sophisticated use, or indeed misuse, of modern technology. Fortunately, as a corollary, many of the methods of detecting crime and proving it are now highly sophisticated. Surely, top-class criminal brains, with their inventive ingenuity, require top-class police brains and skill to match the opposition.
	Secondly, it seems to me and to many others that a much higher proportion of police time is spent on desk work and form filling. Again, my noble friend gave figures to demonstrate the truth of that proposition. There are no doubt many reasons for this. There is the increasing insistence, both in legislation and in the courts, that the police must go through lengthy procedures and must be able to demonstrate that they have done so. Then, almost as a corollary, there seems to be an ever-increasing demand within the police organisation, and from those with responsibility for it, that forms should be filled in and records kept to show what every policeman has done and why he did it. This is, I suspect—the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, made the point—because of an ever-growing fear of claims and complaints that lead people to go through procedures to avert those complaints or be able to answer them.
	These requirements are no doubt devised with the best of intentions and to protect the public from unfairness or malpractices. But, as with so much form-filling requirements devised by government or by authorities, it seems to me highly dubious whether these requirements achieve their end and certainly whether the benefits of them outweigh the very considerable time spent upon them. Those who impose these kinds of requirements, whether upon the police or upon people in every other walk of life, seem to fail to recognise that rules of these kinds do not deter those who are bent upon malpractice. Such people merely tick the required boxes and ignore the substance of the requirements. Where they do bear heavily is upon your normal, reasonably conscientious police officer or citizen who regards form filling as a waste of their time and a distraction from the real functions which they hope to perform when they join the police.
	Thirdly, there is the creeping expansion of the police role from law enforcement into what one might call social services and nanny-state good works. Fourthly, there is the unfortunate widening gap, almost alienation, between the police and those whom they should be seeking to serve. The public nowadays has a strong feeling of "them" and "us", which did not previously exist and which is highly undesirable. There are no doubt many reasons for this and various individuals who would give differing reasons. But I have little doubt that almost everyone shares my perception on this, and equally that almost everyone feels that it is a serious and indeed sad change, which it would be highly desirable to reverse.
	The other side of this Motion is in the organisation of the police. My gut feeling is that the changes in the organisation over the past years have not been such as to keep up with the changing role and the ever more complicated and difficult task of the police, or to give police management the skills needed to cope with the new problems and to overcome them. On this issue, I want to raise with much diffidence the question of the quality of those in the upper, although not necessarily the top levels, of the police hierarchy. Many years ago I took a humble part in a lengthy inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Mars-Jones into a particular incident in a police station and into the defects of the subsequent investigation by the police hierarchy of that incident. In the course of that inquiry we heard evidence from all the senior officers involved in the chain of command. Our unanimous feeling—our team was headed by Lord Lane, who became the Lord Chief Justice—was that virtually everyone in that chain of command had been promoted beyond his level of competence.
	I do not know, but I suspect, that this would still be the case. My main reason for this feeling is that, as a general rule, you do not get enough talented natural leaders in any organisation if the sole or main route to the top is by steady promotions from the very bottom. In business, commerce and industry, as well as in the armed services, people are taken in expressly to be leaders and to manage. It may be true that every private soldier has a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, but none the less the majority of our generals, admirals and so on did not start as private soldiers or able seamen. Of course in any organisation there will be some who rise to the top and perform magnificently—and we have in this House living proof of that fact—but that does not mean that the average occupant of a second-tier leadership post has the talent, the breadth of vision and the mental scope required nowadays in a top-class police force needing to cope with the great technical difficulties of modern policing.
	I am well aware that these tentative views may sound horribly elitist, but we need to consider carefully why it is that the police have a system of breeding their managers that is totally different from anything that occurs in private business or in the armed services, and which they find best, indeed essential, to get leaders without whom nothing can go right.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on securing this debate at what is obviously an extremely important time for the police service. I declare my interest as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority since 1993, save for a couple of years. I have served, and still do, on the Association of Police Authorities. I am the chairman of the basic command unit in Oxfordshire and a member of the Police Performance group there, which perhaps gives the lie to the fact that there is a separation between operational policing and the role of police authorities. I am a member of the Crime and Disorder Partnership in the Vale; I belong to the Local Strategic Partnership and Public Services Board in Oxfordshire; and I am a member of our local area policing board.
	So I have comprehensive knowledge of the way policing is conducted and of the Government's attempts, following the Green Paper in 2003 and the 2004 White Paper, to—in their view—bring policing closer to people and involve them in the process. However, the Government's proposals in their Closing the gap paper and the subsequent Police and Justice Bill are thoroughly insensitive, impatient, illiberal, uncosted, and likely to increase bureaucracy and weaken substantially the democratic accountability of, and local involvement in, policing. I say "impatient" because many changes have been and are being made in policing following the reforms initiated by Mr Blunkett when he was Home Secretary. Those reforms have not even been completely implemented, and we are faced immediately with another series of reforms before those of the former Home Secretary have been put into place.
	Much improvement in policing is taking place as a result of the previous series of reforms. We have reduced the number of basic command units in my authority, Thames Valley, by half, and we have made their boundaries coterminous with the local authorities in our areas. We have set up the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Where they work, they are comprehensive bodies involving local authorities, health authorities, the police, those responsible for housing, who are now mostly outside local authorities, those responsible those responsible for dealing with drugs and alcohol abuse, and those responsible for tackling domestic violence. All those people are being brought together and we are beginning to make progress, but we have only just started. We have had about three full meetings of the CDRP, and already someone is trying to change the procedures.
	Our local area policing board is only just getting its people. Some of them are coming to their first meeting in May next year, because it has taken that length of time for the whole process to go through. There are plans to strengthen the protective services. We have relied rather heavily on mutual aid between forces, but that aid has been forthcoming.
	I quote now from West Mercia, a police force that is efficient by any measure. It is the cheapest police force, and almost one of the best police forces in the country. It has just agreed, following the review of protective services, to have more staff involved: 21 more people on major crime; 20 additional posts dealing with serious and organised crime; and 19 new posts on intelligence. It will gladden the heart of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to see that there are 21 new posts in road policing in West Mercia, backed up by automatic number plate recognition, which considerably enhances their capability. There are six new posts for civil contingencies and eight new posts for critical incidents. I give those examples to show that people are not complacent. They have taken on board what the Home Office has said about the need to strengthen protective services. All of that is being added in West Mercia without additional cost, because that force is extremely efficient and has made considerable savings elsewhere.
	We have been mindful of the criticism of the response of the public inquiry centres. The criticism was that we had established the single non-emergency number but we were slow to answer, and the answers were not followed through by police. Both issues have been addressed in Thames Valley and the authority has committed substantial extra resources to ensuring that the phone is answered very quickly and each incident is followed through until we have had some satisfaction from the users. All of that has been achieved against some very tight financial settlements. Our sanction detection rate has gone up in the past 15 months from 16 per cent to 30 per cent. The Minister may acknowledge that we have almost choked the Crown Prosecution Service and the Court Service with the work we have rendered to them to take through the criminal justice system. So the police force, in terms of actually arresting criminals, is very efficient, but it needs the Court Service and other people to see that those people get their just deserts.
	That is a result of a huge focused effort by people, and it is all being put at risk by what I can only describe as an ill-researched, uncosted plan of enforced mergers of police authorities, which in my view is bound to lead to a complete diversion of effort to organisational issues. Those issues have to be addressed; you have to make large parts of the workforce redundant and then offer them posts in any new emerging organisation. It creates huge uncertainty and will take away the focus from catching criminals and delivering local services.
	I turn to the issue of democratic deficit. At present we have one representative of each council—except Oxfordshire, which has two—on the police authority. If we expand as proposed, it will not be possible to provide the essential democratic link to elected authorities unless they are made unacceptably large, which would be inefficient. It is no use saying that accountability can be delivered at basic command unit level, at crime disorder reduction partnership level, or through community scrutiny committees because none of them will be able to see the strategic picture or have an influence on such vital areas as training, call handling, property services, and so on. Those are necessarily delivered at force level and through the medium of the Association of Police Authorities.
	The most objectionable and illiberal aspect of the Police and Justice Bill is the power that is transferred to the Home Secretary in respect of police authorities. Enacted by negative instrument, in which Parliament has no say, particularly objectionable is the power to appoint the chair and vice chair of police authorities. The privilege of appointment rests with fellow members who make such judgments based on their experience of the competence of people rather than the whim of the Home Secretary of the day.
	What of the people? The West Mercia force is efficient and cost-effective. The authority has already made so much by way of plans to strengthen its protective service. In a consultation exercise 123 out of the 126 organisations consulted supported the present structure and unambiguously said that large-scale reorganisation such as that envisaged would not realise the cost savings and efficiencies, and that large organisations soon lose touch with their customers. What professional research was done that has given such compelling evidence to the Home Secretary that only such a monstrous upheaval will deliver what is needed. We see no sign of such evidence and conclude that this is a hasty and ill-judged attempt at reorganisation without thought of its effect, the economics and purpose of police forces, and the way in which they interlink with local communities and democracy.
	Obviously some mergers are welcome. We volunteered at Thames Valley to merge with Bedfordshire, who volunteered to merge with us. But, because we go across a regional boundary, which is a sort of line in the sand, that rules it out. The Government's expansion plans for Milton Keynes go between the two counties, and it makes absolute sense to merge them, but that has been ruled out by the Home Secretary without considering the effects.
	I want to say a final word about the British Transport Police, which has a long and historic association with the railways. It is a specialist force which concentrates its efforts on keeping the railway open, minimising delay and disruption, protecting passengers and staff and reducing vandalism or other forms of anti-social behaviour. It has transformed itself under its present chief constable, and following recent terrorist outrages, is now equipped to get to incidents quickly and safely because it gives them a high priority.
	When incidents occur involving the Metropolitan Police on railway property, they clear them within 126 minutes; the British Transport Police do it in 64 minutes. They are focused, and because of that the railway is kept open. Although it is not the Minister's responsibility—I know that the issue rests with the Department for Transport—there seems to be no valid reason for burying that highly professional specialist force, which is the policy that the Government have hastily concocted.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for securing the debate. As always in your Lordships' House, a debate of this nature shows the extraordinary range of ability and expertise that it commands. It is interesting that we have had not only speeches on the strategic issues of policing, but interesting insights into specialist policing from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the British Transport Police from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Were I not speaking from the Front Bench, I would be inviting your Lordships to assess where I stand in the post for which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Elton are vying.
	The debate has provoked an interesting discussion, with valuable contributions from all sides of the House, and it is clear that it is time for a fundamental review of policing in this country. However, we on these Benches disagree with the current proposals that are, in the words of my noble friend Lord Waddington, though not in this debate,
	"a gigantic step towards a national police force".—[Official Report, 7/2/06; col. 503.]
	We must all bear that in mind.
	Issues have been raised with which we wholeheartedly agree. Our police forces have been subjected to an increasing weight of bureaucracy amid growing concerns over the future of the office of chief constable and the political independence of the police service as a whole. Reference has been made to the new Police and Justice Bill, which has had a very rough ride from all my noble friends behind me, and from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. My noble friend Lord Waddington said with cold logic that the fewer police forces there are, the greater the ability of the Home Secretary to control them. We wish police forces to be professional, flexible and to have incentives to do their job with real accountability to local people. We need time to consider how best to achieve that, in a way that will strengthen the bond of trust between the police and the public. That is, again, a point made by my noble friend.
	I hope that the Minister will outline the Government's response to the IPCC report, and how they intend to help the IPCC to encourage confidence among the more vulnerable and minority sections of society.
	We all wish to find a better way of dealing with serious crime, as the Police Federation has highlighted. The challenges facing the service have never been greater, from tackling anti-social behaviour to combating international terrorism; from yobs to bombers. We want to improve the ability of our police to deliver their services in the light of those challenges. We need to ensure that they have the training, skills and resources to do so to the best of their ability, and where possible to build up their expertise and experience.
	We acknowledge the need for reform. Nevertheless, we do not support the changes suggested, and the hasty amalgamation programme planned by the Government is not justified, which is a strand that has run through the whole debate. My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report on the proposed restructuring, highlighting that short timetables limit the scope for debate and impede consultation with all stakeholders. It is vital that change should not be achieved at the expense of doing it properly.
	The Home Secretary decreed that all forces should produce business plans for amalgamation before Christmas—the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, gave us that timetable—but none did so. Only seven signed up to the full regional mergers, and none has the unanimous approval of the forces concerned, save for Lancashire and Cumbria. West Mercia has become the high-profile leader in the objections, as we have heard, in detail, from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. My own county of Hampshire is faced with three options: one, to remain on its own, which I understand is the preferred option of the force; two, to amalgamate with Wiltshire and Dorset; and, three, to amalgamate with Thames Valley. I understand that the second option has been ruled out as, once again, it crosses Mr Prescott's regional boundaries. One can starkly see the impact of this regionalisation by stealth. In the case of Hampshire, the Minister will also have to deal with a very concerned judiciary; it is concerned about the break-up of the Crown Courts organisation in Wessex.
	My noble friend Lord Waddington and I, and no doubt others, have had a go at the Minister about this, and, ever the optimist, I hope that she can enlighten us further. I have a further question for the Minister: will these amalgamations lead to the enforced retirement of a number of assistant chief constables and, if so, why are a number still being appointed to that rank?
	Efficiency and effectiveness have been key considerations in the debate. I share the view that the Government's proposals have too often been viewed solely through the lens of economies of scale. Quality of service delivery in conjunction with financial efficiency must be the key. We propose that some police forces could increase their efficiency by sharing services, if they choose to do so. That would enable economies of scale on cross-border issues but also enable constabularies to retain independence and be accountable to local people. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, provided an interesting suggestion about collaboration rather than amalgamation.
	My noble friend Lady Shephard has given us a vivid illustration of the thoughts and aspirations of the very disparate police forces in East Anglia. There is an overwhelming argument for a local approach to policing. Indeed, the Police Federation itself remains unconvinced that,
	"larger police forces will not be more remote and thus separated from the very communities they have in recent years done so much to re-engage with".
	Each area has its own requirements. The organisation best suited to deal with terrorism is not necessarily the best suited to deal with shoplifting. Moreover, there are serious concerns that amalgamations will drain resources from rural areas, a point highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, as regards Yorkshire.
	The prime example of too much haste is the cost of the proposed changes, which has been very thoroughly dealt with by your Lordships today. My right honourable friend David Davis observed in another place that the O'Connor report, Closing the Gap, said that the cost,
	"far from closing the gap, [it] will open a gaping black hole in the finances of our local police forces".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/06; col. 327.]
	The APA's estimate of the cost of this operation of £0.5 billion has, I know, been disputed by the Minister. Be that as it may, the Government have belatedly offered £125 million, which, we understand, would be raided from the capital budget for the police, but it still leaves a huge gap. Even having to find a generously low figure of a net £350 million means that average increases in council tax band D across the whole of England and Wales, excluding London, will be £23.
	For a moment I would like to dwell in more detail on the modernisation of police pay and work conditions. At the start of this speech I mentioned the need for the police to have incentives in their work. Police officers are relatively well paid—better than teachers or nurses. Their levels of pay reflect the value that society places on them and the nature of their work, which is often difficult and dangerous. We should never forget the risks that police officers run for us. However, officers tend to be paid according to length of service or seniority. We would wish to see pay in relation to skills, competence, performance and professionalism and an increasing regard given to rewarding merit. What discussions has the Home Office had with the Police Federation and the Association of Police Authorities regarding the modernisation of police pay? Has she addressed the vexed question of "working the sickie", which, unfortunately, is rife in some forces?
	In a speech in January, my right honourable friend David Cameron referred to the necessity of attracting recruits of the highest calibre. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has also mentioned this. From time to time, it is asked why the service does not introduce Sandhurst-type officer cadet training, which works so well in the Armed Forces. A senior police officer explained to me why a similar system in the police will not work. She outlined to me, in persuasive terms, the feeling of being "on your own", often in conditions of great danger, which a police constable will inevitably experience from time to time and which, on the whole, has no counterpart in the Army, for example, where a soldier would normally be part of the unit, however small, be it a section or a platoon. She went on to argue that a token period spent on the beat would be a wholly insufficient experience. Noble Lords will be aware that the Trenchard Officer Cadet Scheme, introduced between the wars, was very unpopular with the police service and was abandoned after the second world war. Interestingly, Sir Ian Blair, the current Police Commissioner, in his remarkable Dimbleby lecture, said:
	"I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by people that they had thought of joining the police but hadn't had the courage to do so. What they actually mean, by and large, is that they thought that, interesting as it was, they were of too superior a class or educational background".
	I am told that the so-called fast-track schemes are not really effective. That was obliquely referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. Are the Home Office and the police service addressing the problem of creating a really effective scheme, whereby men and women, whose qualities of intellect and leadership may be recognised at an early stage, may be able to rise rapidly up the ladder, without sacrificing the irreplaceable experience of the police constable, which is so much the backbone of policing in this country and about which my informant felt so strongly?
	The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to the small number of minority ethnic officers in the national police force. Last month, at a reception held in another place, Sir Ian Blair gave us a statistic—I hope I quote him correctly—that 50 per cent of current recruits to the Metropolitan Police are from a minority ethnic background. If that is so, it is a very encouraging trend.
	It has been well said that every country has the police that it deserves. In this country, where Sir Robert Peel invented the concept of the community policeman, we are proud to have a force that, despite the threats of 21st-century terrorism and criminality, remains, for the greater part, unarmed. However, with the increasing sophistication and resources available to terrorists and criminals, the police must keep ahead of them. In view of the quality of members of the police service in this country, I hope that all sides of the House will share my confidence that they will. But they require every assistance from the Government to enable them to fulfil their purpose: serving their local communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, has said with such eloquence.
	I hope that the Minister will use her very considerable influence in the Home Office to convey to her right honourable friend the Home Secretary the unanimous sentiments of this debate in urging him to think again, particularly on the programming of the proposed timetable. I shall be very interested to hear her comments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to write to noble Lords about the detail of the consultation that we had with the authorities. The noble Lord will be aware that the primary responsibility for this would have been with my right honourable friend Hazel Blears. I do not today have the details of exactly how the consultation was carried out, but I would be happy to write to noble Lords about that, so that there can be a better understanding.
	One has to understand the context in which consultation takes place in these circumstances. One does not want improperly to interfere in the way in which the police authority operates. The police may want to consult the public in that regard. We can make suggestions, but it would be invidious if we were to be prescriptive. My impression—I make it clear that it is an impression—is that there was an informed and constructive debate, which is the key to the success of a reform programme of this scale.
	We also have to put this against the background of the enormous investment that has been made into policing in this country since 1997. On a like-for-like basis, expenditure on policing supported by government grant across England and Wales has increased since 1997 by 27 per cent in real terms and by 53 per cent in cash terms, or by over £3.7 billion. We have seen a 35 per cent reduction in overall crime since 1997 and the fact that the chances of being a victim of crime are at their lowest since the British Crime Survey began in 1981 is an indication of the hard work that has been invested by all in the system to deliver those results, which have been achieved through partnership.
	I want to touch on one of the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in relation to how the police operate with the Crown Prosecution Service and what we are doing about training. One of the consequences of the partnership working is that the CPS is now responsible for charging, which means that the police have available to them some quite expert legal advice on a continuing basis. The whole idea of learning together and sharing information is becoming embedded in the way in which we work, because we have discovered that in that way lies success. I want to reassure noble Lords about that.
	I add in response to the pertinent point that the noble Viscount made that the service should reflect the people whom it serves. We have invested considerable effort in trying to make sure that that occurs. I give an absolute assurance to the noble Viscount that the energy that we have invested in that will continue. We wish to see a better representation—the 7 per cent, which would better reflect the communities that are being served.
	Under the current 43-force structure, the police service has made significant strides, as everybody has identified, in dealing with level 1 volume crime. Success at this level has been driven by strengthening local policing, which is structured around the basic command unit and which will be preserved. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie is absolutely right in saying that the basic command unit will deliver the face-to-face local policing with which ordinary members of the community are likely to interface. He is also right to say that the strategic overview is not likely to be something that the individual citizen on the street will be too exercised about, provided that the quality of the policing is there. Therefore, because of our commitment to build on achievements at the local level, as demonstrated by a commitment to provide dedicated, visible, accessible and responsive neighbourhood policing to all areas by 2008, the public will get the advantage referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, when he said that if you take something away, you have to make sure that people get back something real, positive and effective. We are absolutely determined to do that.
	Notwithstanding the success that we have all celebrated this afternoon, attained through our overall reform programme, we are committed to further improvements to develop a police service fit to tackle the complexities of the 21st century crime. We understand that the criminal landscape has changed significantly over the 30 years of the current policing structure. There is a clear professional acknowledgement of the need to address the changing landscape by addressing gaps in level 2 protective services.
	As noble Lords know, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary highlighted those, but the findings were stark; it is easy to forget how stark. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, rightly spoke about that from her experience, but we need to take those findings seriously. They indicated that less than 6 per cent of more than 1,500 big, organised crime gangs are targeted by police in a year. The majority of forces did not have fully resourced specialist murder units, and only seven out of the 43 forces deploy Special Branch alongside neighbourhood teams and capture community intelligence. These are all due to the lack of capacity and capability within the current police force structure to tackle effectively level 2 crime.
	To address this, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has recommended the development of strategic forces in order to equip the police service to provide effective level 2 protective services, which include serious and organised crime, counter-terrorism, domestic extremism, civil contingency and emergency planning, critical incident management, major crime, homicide, public order and strategic roads policing. I am pleased to be able to say that because I know how passionate my noble friend Lord Simon is about those issues, and rightly so.
	The strategic forces across England and Wales must possess the necessary capacity and resilience to respond effectively to serious crime or public disorder incidents when they happen. Equally importantly, they are to be more proactive in countering organised criminal networks by gathering the intelligence needed to understand and pre-empt their activities. This reform will lead to significant change in the 43-force structure in England and Wales. However, HMIC has demonstrated that this can be achieved with minimal impact on the local national network of 248 basic command units. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that our commitment to local accountability—local delivery—through those 248 basic command units remains resolute and unchanged.
	We believe that this reform is necessary to preserve and strengthen achievements made in neighbourhood policing. Local people will experience an improvement to their local policing. The creation of strategic forces with sufficient capacity and resilience to deal with major investigations or public order incidents will help safeguard local policing by reducing the need to abstract officers and staff from neighbourhood policing teams. Indeed, we hope that by 2008 every neighbourhood will benefit from a dedicated team. Every resident will know the name of their local bobby, see them on their streets and will have their telephone number and e-mail address. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, who I do not see in his place, will be able to rejoice, we hope, in seeing the local bobby back in his place, notwithstanding the changes that we have had to make to the structure over time, as my noble friend Lord Mackenzie.
	The ongoing consultation process and today's debate have been useful in raising a number of key issues, notably timescale and consultation, a theme that ran through a number of contributions. I will also try quickly to touch upon collaboration and federation; strategic and local accountability, precepts, start-up costs and the use of resources.
	I have already said a little on timescales and consultation. I invite your Lordships to consider that we believe this challenging timescale necessary if we are not to subject the service to prolonged uncertainty, which could lead to loss of morale and a distraction from its core task of protecting the public. We cannot allow that to happen, so we need to press ahead as quickly as it is sensible to do so.
	Many of us have talked about collaboration and federation for a long time. We also need to bear in mind what Sir Ronnie Flanagan, the head of HMIC, said. He describes the existing collaborative arrangements as woefully inadequate and notes that they fail to deliver sustained resourcing for preventive or developmental work. A comprehensive step change is now required in the way level 2 is policed. This will be demonstrated in the years to come by the creation of strategic forces.
	We take advice given to us by HMIC very seriously indeed, because it is the foundation or cornerstone upon which we rely for so much. It must also be the case that some level of federalism would be valuable, but this cannot be a substitute for strategic forces. Federation as proposed would be an added layer of bureaucracy. It would avoid some of the real issues of clarity of responsibility and accountability which have to be resolved on a day-to-day basis. Any federated or collaborative option would have to demonstrate that it could overcome these obstacles and deliver the same or greater gains of efficiency and effectiveness as the strategic force option. Both federation and collaboration would also undoubtedly incur costs, which have not as yet been explored. The restructuring will not lead to the eradication of borders. There will still be a need for strategic forces to collaborate with each other to tackle level 2 crime. That will be fundamental.
	I am aware of the concerns raised that a move to strategic forces will lead to a loss of public accountability. We have been working with the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others to address this issue by strengthening the governance and accountability arrangements, both at force level and at basic command unit level. We will continue to do that with ever greater energy.
	The Police and Justice Bill, contrary to what has been said in this debate, will not inure to the disadvantage of the independence of the service. We think it will assist to a large degree.
	Much has been said on precepts and I know that there is concern. I must reassure noble Lords. We have been working very hard on those issues. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that there had been a 40 per cent increase anticipated in the precept cost as changed—is not accurate. The truth is that that authority is one of those minded to change. The noble Lord referred to Northumbria. It would involve a small increase for Northumbria, but a reduction for Cleveland and Durham. Notwithstanding that, Northumbria still thought that it was a very good thing to do. We thought that that was an accurate assessment.
	Noble Lords mentioned start-up costs. We recognise that they may cause difficulties, which is why we came forward with £125 million to support it. Of course, resources will be important.
	I have a plethora of very detailed answers to all the other questions raised. If I had another 20 minutes I would doubtless be able to delight your Lordships with a full explanation of each and every one of them. I apologise for not having the advantage of doing so. I will certainly write on all those issues that I have not had an opportunity to explore.
	This is an important point in our development and we have to reform. That reform has to take place now because we need a service that is fit for purpose, fit for the 21st century and fit for the people whom we are privileged to serve.

Lord Cobbold: rose to call attention to the drug classification system; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the subject of our debate is clearly not a great crowd puller on a Thursday afternoon. It is nevertheless a subject of great importance, but I do not wish to restrict the debate to consideration of the drug classification system. It is a subject of great controversy and is highly topical as 1 March saw the publication of the 100-page annual report of the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board and a 60-page report The Evidence Base for the Classification of Drugs, which was prepared by the Rand Corporation for the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. The United Nations report received quite a bit of press coverage because it voiced concern about the increasing use in the United States of methamphetamine or crystal meth, which can be made from household products and is expected to spread to Europe.
	We last addressed this subject in June 2003, some five months after the Government's decision to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C. We now address the subject again, following the Government's recent decision to maintain the classification of cannabis as class C. That decision was much influenced by the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its December report, which stated that,
	"the slow decline in cannabis use since 1998 has been sustained following reclassification and there is no evidence at present of any short-term increase in consumption among young people since reclassification".
	That came as a surprise to many, including the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, who admitted his surprise in his Statement to the House of Commons on 19 January, reported at col. 984 of Commons Hansard. In the same Statement, the Home Secretary announced his intention to publish a consultation paper within the next few weeks with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, which dates from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Rand Corporation report to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which I have already referred, will provide valuable evidence for that exercise.
	But is this enough? It seems to me that what we should really be doing is reviewing the whole basis of our national drugs policy and initiating an open debate on the pros and cons of prohibition versus regulation and control. Such a review was last undertaken by the Home of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs in May 2002. The committee considered the option of decriminalisation and control, but its report concluded:
	"While acknowledging that there may come a day when the balance may tip in favour of legalising and regulating some types of presently illegal drugs, we decline to recommend this drastic step".
	The Government accepted that conclusion and retain their blanket opposition to decriminalisation, regulation and control.
	Nevertheless, I intend to go through once again the important arguments that fully justify a rethink of current policy. First and foremost, it is clear that the prohibitionist war against drugs is not being won. Drugs are readily available and supply has grown hugely over the past 30 years. The world trade in drugs is said to be the second largest market after oil. Can it be right that it should be wholly in the hands of criminal organisations? I believe that this is the strongest argument for change.
	Then there are the costs involved. We are told that more than 50 per cent of the inmates of our overcrowded prisons are there for drug-related crimes. The total cost of drug-related crime and its social consequences is estimated to be up to £18 billion per annum, which compares with an annual excise revenue on alcohol and tobacco of more than £10 billion. Clearly, if drugs were subject to taxation and controls similar to those on alcohol and tobacco, a major revenue source would be available to finance all-important education programmes in schools, as well as vital rehabilitation and harm-reduction schemes around the country.
	Another extremely important benefit of legalisation would be quality control. The licensing and regulation of individual substances would provide the same quality guarantees that exist for alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical products. Sales would be via licensed premises or pharmacies, depending on the substances concerned.
	There is also the issue of human rights. To what extent is it the responsibility of the state to protect individuals from damaging themselves? We live in an age when the nanny state interferes more and more in our individual liberties. In the case of drugs laws, has it gone one step too far? It is clearly the duty of the state to prevent injury and damage to third parties and property, but our current drug laws manifestly fail to do that. The Rand Corporation report, to which I referred earlier, states that in the UK:
	"Around four million people use illegal drugs each year. Most of those people do not appear to experience harm from their drug use, nor do they cause harm to others as a result of their habit".
	However, unlike those who smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, they are criminals.
	I have tried in the time available to draw attention to the main arguments for a change in national drug policy towards legal regulation and control. The arguments are very strong and I find it most depressing that the Government can continue to renounce them in favour of blanket prohibition. Why are politicians so reluctant even to discuss the pros and cons of decriminalisation and control? Apart from a reluctance to admit to failure, there is the fear of electoral condemnation. It is assumed that the British public is instinctively against legalisation and would reject any moves in that direction. But the British public has not been given the benefit of an open debate. There is also the presumption that legalisation would give rise to a massive increase in usage. The experience of the decline in cannabis usage after reclassification suggests that that might not necessarily be the case, given a properly informed and focused educational campaign.
	The real difficulty is that this is not just a national issue, but a global one. We are bound by the 1998 United Nations convention on international co-operation in the drugs field, and there would clearly be serious risks in going it alone. So what can realistically be achieved? There are two initiatives that the government might pursue. The first is simply to bring the subject out into the open and sponsor an independent study not just of the drug classification system as currently proposed, but also of current policies of prohibition versus the pros and cons of regulation and control. Secondly, we should talk more with our neighbours in Europe and see if any common ground can be established. It is perhaps an area where Europe could take the lead.
	It is a huge and controversial subject. I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords in our debate this afternoon, and I await with interest the reaction of the Minister. I am afraid that I have strayed somewhat from the basic theme of the Motion. Nevertheless, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I cannot help commenting on the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I think that it was President Nixon who resolved to buy the Afghan poppy crop in the mid 1970s. Professor Milton Friedman questioned it as a policy and President Nixon did not buy the crop. At that time, the United State's entire consumption in a year was one tonne and the crop was 10 tonnes. He was so alarmed that he refused to buy it, at what we would now regard as a cheap price. It is interesting to note, three or four years after the allies' invasion of Afghanistan—one of the main reasons for which was to eradicate the poppy—that this year's poppy crop will be 40,000 tonnes. What a really successful policy that was. That is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, draws to our attention today.
	Most of us who have been involved in drug issues realised long ago that while cannabis was in class B, it would sit more comfortably in class C. The reason no one has made a fuss about this since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was passed 34 years ago is that it does not really matter and nobody really cares. Most people, including me, do not know what the precise criteria are that lead one drug to be put in class A, B or C, except that we assume that what you might colloquially call the most nasty or dangerous drugs are in class A, and the softest, weakest and least harmful in class C. I have worked in the field for 20 years, and I have never met anybody who could tell me precisely the definition, or why there should be three categories. Why not have six, eight, 25 or 312? I have absolutely no idea and neither does anybody else.
	We know that class A drugs attract higher penalties and that class C drugs attract lesser penalties. That is probably all that we know. The controversy surrounding classification arose only when the Home Secretary of the day, David Blunkett, proposed to reclassify cannabis from B to C and immediately created a great row. If you stand back and look at it, on the scale of important things to do in drug policy, this one comes pretty near the bottom.
	I am not sure whether your Lordships or Members of another place who spend their lives in what is now called the Westminster village—the strange, introverted world of politics—know this, but despite drugs being the most serious, damaging and costly social issue facing Britain today, the question of which class of drugs cannabis is in is a matter of supreme unimportance, as it makes no difference to those who take them or might take them, their parents, teachers or policemen.
	The Power Commission report on the state of our democracy, which was published and launched with great fanfare on Monday, made a great point about how the political establishment has become divorced from reality. There is no better example of this than the drugs issue. Politicians are so busy not sending the wrong message and being tough that they have completely forgotten that, outside Westminster, a whole world does not care whether they are weak or tough, and merely wants them to be effective. At the moment, the policy is completely ineffectual.
	The trouble with reclassification is that when the row took place, the Home Secretary lost his nerve, and having decided to lower the classification, raised the penalties, which effectively meant that we were back where we started. The only effect of the change was therefore that everybody—the general public, parents, children, policemen, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh—was even more confused than when they started. The Government will doubtless tell us that the result has been a reduction in cannabis use. Lots of organisations will tell us that there has been an increase. I say to your Lordships, "Just wait and see". We have seen reductions before, and we know that people do not tell the truth about their drug use or their sex lives, which is why those surveys are so inaccurate. We know, however, that over a period of years we see an inexorable rise. If there has been a bit of a blip this year, it would be great if it really meant that drug use was levelling out and lowering, but I doubt it. Let us wait and see.
	We now have another furore because the Government have talked about changing the classification back from C to B, on the basis of some new evidence. The report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, to which the Home Secretary is rightly obliged to listen, is prayed in aid by both sides in this argument. Again, I urge your Lordships to exercise a bit of caution. There has always been a link between cannabis and mental health, and there always will be. We do not understand the link. Quite a lot of research has been done, and more research comes out every year. Like most research, it does not produce an answer but more questions. The incidence of schizophrenia has not increased in society in this country or across the world, but the incidence of cannabis use has. Presumably, the link between mental illness and cannabis would therefore also go up—it is kind of obvious.
	New research that came out recently shows that people with a propensity for mental illness may be attracted to cannabis because it does something for them that it does not do for other people. We do not know what that link is; we do not understand it yet—we need more research. But the bottom line—horrible phrase—is that although there are some interesting new snippets, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a massive increase in mental illness due to cannabis use and there are no grounds to change the policy again.
	Rather as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, if you think that as a cornerstone of our national policy on drugs, illegal drugs should be classified in three groups, it is not entirely unreasonable to think that cannabis should be in class C. That is not saying that the Government managed the process well, because they did not, and that is what has caused the problem.
	The debate surrounding the reclassification of cannabis is only a small part of the picture. If you think it is a difficult area, as most of us do, you have to look behind reclassification, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is the centre of the Government's policy and has been for 34 years. I can think of no other social policy whose centrepiece is an Act of Parliament that is 34 years old and was pretty much cobbled together in the first place. However, we can agree with the philosophy behind the Act.
	The perception 34 years ago, when much less was known, was that drugs were not a good thing. They are bad for the people who take them; drug-taking injures the health, harms the families of the drug-taker and damages the communities in which those families live. Putting aside the fact that most people take drugs without any harm, injurious effect or legal problems, that philosophy is pretty much right. It is desirable that we as a community, a society and a government reduce drug use. That has to be a good idea.
	The philosophy is simple: drugs do harm, so you ban them, so nobody can take them, so the harm you fear does not come about. Problem solved. The trouble is, it did not and does not work like that. It is not that prohibition is wrong but that it does not work. We cannot ban these drugs because people want them; if they want them, somebody will supply them, particularly as they make a huge profit out of them. As the noble Lord said, this is reputedly the second biggest industry in the world. Like all illegal industries, it feeds on a black market.
	The rise in crime in the western world during the course of my adult life is entirely down to drugs—nothing else. That crime is a direct consequence of a government policy to create prohibition. That is why our criminal courts are stretched to breaking point, why our prisons are overcrowded and why our police cannot do the job our citizens want them to do every day. That is why WPCs get shot on the streets of Nottingham, as that lady was two weeks ago; she was shot by a cocaine dealer, with a gun. That is why he was there—he was in the drugs trade. That is why policemen get shot at; that is why we have gun crime and gang crime. That is why each successive criminal justice Bill contains a tiny measure which will suddenly tip the balance after 30 years and make everything all right. But it does not—it will not work and it is rubbish. The emperor has no clothes. The policy cannot, does not, and will never work. But it will not be discussed and it will not be changed because elected politicians can never appear to be weak.
	If you are not tough on drugs, you are weak. But we are not tough on drugs. The week before last, a pop star called Pete Doherty, whom I had never heard of before, was arrested and convicted of seven counts of possession of class A drugs—his second or third offence. He got a six-month community order. What more do you have to do to go to prison?
	Prisons are not full of people taking drugs; they are full of people who were working in the illegal drugs industry and end up on drugs because they have gone to prison, paid for by you and me. The illegal drugs problem is costing the British taxpayer £16 billion a year, with £12 billion of that spent on the criminal justice system. Last year's report by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for the Cabinet Office made it clear that that has absolutely no effect on the level of drugs on our streets or the harm that drugs cause.
	As the noble Lord said in opening, this is a complex subject, difficult to deal with in a short debate. I will leave your Lordships with a question at a human level. We either change the policy or we continue it pretty much as it is. The question that your Lordships have to ask yourselves at a human level is simple. If, like me, you are a parent—some of your Lordships are; and some, extraordinarily enough, are grandparents—when your child, grandchild or their friend goes out to buy a drug—we know that 25 per cent of them buy cannabis and others will buy other drugs—do you want them to buy them from a state-controlled outlet at a reasonable price knowing what they are buying in the safest possible way, which I think is a better idea; or do you, like the Government, want them to go out and buy an unknown substance at a vast price from an armed and extremely dangerous criminal on a darkened street? I know which I would prefer; I look forward to hearing what the Government prefer.

Baroness Murphy: My Lords, I want to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for raising the debate, not least because I agree with every word he said, and every word the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, and with that tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I am a psychiatrist, and your Lordships will expect that I will address some of the issues to do with mental health and cannabis. It is worth repeating some of the recent evidence, if only because I totally accept that it is less than clear and we need to carry out better research. The evidence emerging over the past 20 years will become much clearer. I am reminded of the evidence on the harmful effects of smoking, and how that emerged from the first early warning signs. I will speak a little about my experience on the drug issue.
	I am slightly concerned, particularly after the balanced report that I would have expected from the advisory committee on the misuse of drugs, that the evidence has been prayed in aid to both causes. It is typically well-written and well-researched and advice comes from a cautious scientific committee, but nevertheless they are looking at current evidence that could be said to be methodologically sound. That means that it is a cautious interpretation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, and we probably all agree, we want to minimise the overall harm that drugs can do to individuals, their families and society. I suggest that cannabis should not be reclassified as a class B drug; all the evidence points to further decriminalisation and probably also for many other drugs rather than a return to a punitive approach.
	I should say straightaway that I part company with my fellow members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the issue. We are one on the evidence of harm but differ in our approach to policy. What is the current research evidence linking cannabis use and mental illness? There are many community psychiatrists like myself who have witnessed a major increase in admissions of young people for transient and episodic scizophreniform psychoses, particularly in the inner city. That has not affected the national statistics, but if we look at inner city London and the admissions for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses among young populations in inner urban areas, we will find that there has been an increase in drugs in those diagnoses and there has certainly been a dramatic increase in so-called dual diagnosis with psychotic illnesses of people taking both cannabis and also some other drugs.
	Of course, many of us had an increasing suspicion for many years that cannabis was the chief culprit for some of this. However, because so many people take a mixture of drugs, we never know when we are doing clinical work—we have no evidence; all we see is the people before us and we receive an overwhelming clinical impression of the effect. Certainly the interpretation of studies has always been difficult, but prospective studies from populations in Sweden, the Netherlands and New Zealand suggest that the lifetime risk of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychotic illnesses is between two and four times as great over and above what it would be normally for both light and heavy users.
	We might say that that is still low, as the lifetime risk of incidence of schizophrenia and schizophrenic illnesses is between 0.8 and 1 per cent of the population. It is therefore extremely small. Nevertheless, an increase has a profound socio-economic and human effect on the family of those individuals who suffer from it. We should take it a little more seriously in terms of the general harm. I am not talking just about awakening a genetic predisposition. The effect is probably not simply a bringing forward of psychoses in predisposed individuals, although that clearly occurs too. The studies are not methodological and watertight. We need much better designed prospective studies and we must not downplay the current state of evidence, because we will see over the next few years a rise in some anxiety about its overall impact.
	However, it seems to me that pro-drug websites for regular users seem to be minimizing the risk and the serious educational challenge that exists. The risk seems to be dose-related—the higher the dose, the longer the period of exposure and the worse the effect—but that needs confirmation. These episodes of illness are clinically very difficult to treat because of the continuing use of the drug and the interference with antipsychotic medications. They tend to be highly relapsing conditions and—this is a personal view; we do not have any studies to demonstrate it—the lifetime outcome seems to be poor. We need to know a great deal more and have much longer studies of the outcomes.
	Of course, there are many rather more obvious and well-accepted side effects to heavy use of cannabis, notably the impact on driving and accidents generally; the adverse effects on a pregnant woman's foetus; and so on. Again, those risks are linked to heavy consumption and therefore the evidence of serious harm to a proportion of drugs users exists. Despite that, I see no sense in turning back the clock. About a quarter of young people use cannabis regularly. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, the figures are rather stable at present. It is hard to know whether they are going slightly up or slightly down, but they have not been changed since reclassification. I remind your Lordships that it was reclassified because in reality, especially in inner city areas, the police did not enforce the class B regime anyway. They were already implementing a class C approach.
	In inner east London we have known for years that the police would not prosecute for modest possession and were entirely uninterested in the endemic drug culture of our hospital mental health wards. Turning the clock back would have no impact at all. The horse has already bolted, young people smoke cannabis, and that is that. I do not see any evidence that the heavy approach ever worked. The empty rhetoric about getting tough and cracking down merely uses up a lot of police and court time, fills the pockets of criminals supplying illegal drugs and turns occasional drug users and misusers into criminals too. I would much rather we brought cannabis and indeed all potent psychotropic drugs under the same controls and fiscal opportunities as alcohol and tobacco, both of which are far more dangerous to more people than cannabis.
	We need a greater balance of government expenditure to go on realistic public education, especially in primary and secondary schools, about the realities of drugs and the real risks for some people. I believe that young people will respond well to accurate and balanced information, but they are rightly sceptical of inaccurate drug scares. They need to keep their eyes on the website to learn about the realities. We need far greater short-term and longer-term rehabilitation services for those already damaged by the drug, which would be a far better way to reduce the harm and allow parents and teachers to take a more realistic approach to this widespread habit.
	The recent debate about reclassification has helped raise awareness of the dangers of cannabis, but this needs to be reinforced by a major public health campaign. How much effective youth education can really be delivered by the £700 million or so that I was told we are spending on implementing an ineffective criminalisation policy on drugs?

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the serious problem of drug abuse. It is some time since this menace to society has been discussed in your noble Lordships' House. I should explain that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has just arrived; therefore I am speaking before him.
	When the classification of cannabis was downgraded, I was concerned because of the confusion. It went from class B to C and some types went from class A to C. That was liquid cannabis, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives—tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. There are over 20 varieties of cannabis plant, from hemp, which contains 0 per cent THC, to skunk, which contains very high quantities of THC. Skunk can be very strong indeed. There is no doubt that the different classifications can cause confusion to the police at street level.
	For young people, who seem most at risk, classification does not seem to come into their drug-taking. They are more interested in the effects, in what it will do to them and their friends. It is difficult to understand why so many young people are attracted to drugs; but so many want to challenge society and rebel against their parents and school. I asked one of my goddaughters why she had taken drugs. She said:
	"At that time I wanted to be as naughty as I possibly could".
	Many seem to want to shut themselves away from the realities of life. A young man called Daniel said about life with a cannabis addiction:
	"At first, with cannabis, it became so much easier to float by unnoticed. But then you became paranoid. You are quick to assume the world is not going to make a place for you. Through drugs I have come close to destroying myself, but sometimes the only option is to be in this oblivious state. No one, at 23, who has been into cannabis for years, can get away with saying it does not mess your head up. If you are smart, and have potential, and you do drugs for too long, it takes you further away from a healthy, balanced way of living, which is what you secretly wanted in the first place—with that first joint".
	There is such a confusing message. In 2001, 490 patients were admitted to hospital as a result of excessive use of cannabis. There were 710 admissions in each of the past two years. Several recent studies have demonstrated the links between cannabis and schizophrenia. Professor Robin Murray, a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in south London and one of the leading researchers in the field, estimates that 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. In the UK, 250,000 people experience psychosis, a term that refers to symptoms, including delusions and hallucinations, rather than a specific diagnosis. Cannabis, whatever the classification, should not be called a safe drug. It is not just the number of cases of schizophrenia and psychosis that is a concern but the thousands of people who have lost a future. Perhaps that is one reason why we must employ so many people who come from eastern Europe.
	Cannabis promotion is in a state of confusion. If you look up "skunk" on the Internet, you will find advertisements for Secret Seeds, your online SeedSuperStore, or cannabis seeds from Cannabis Heaven, with a grow guide detailing 39 chapters of growing secrets to ensure your maximum success. Surely that sort of advertising is wrong; it is marketed towards young people. If advertising for underage drinkers is wrong, surely promoting dangerous seeds is wrong. Is there anything that can be done to stop this? No doubt, it is promoted from other countries.
	One added problem is the mixing of drugs with alcohol. I wonder how alcohol would be classified, as its mixing with drugs is something that makes it more dangerous. I have attended two funerals of young people who both died from a combination of drugs and alcohol—one son and one daughter of friends. It was so sad to see so many young people at the two churches who came to say goodbye to two wasted and lost lives.
	There have been some terrible murders or stabbings in the past few years. Are the Government going to look into the working of the National Probation Service throughout the country after it has been found to have let John Monkton's murderers roam the streets, when one of them, Elliot White, should have been in custody pending a court appearance in regards to cocaine and heroin? The classification of those class A drugs made no difference; the probation service still let that family down. Will the service learn lessons—or are there many other dangerous drug users not being supervised throughout the country by the probation service?
	The problems of dangerous drugs change and seem to get worse. The problem is global. What is happening about crystal meth, which is said to be more potent and deadly than crack? There have been warnings from the police and health experts of its dangers; it is also known as "ice". Is it a class A or class B drug? The effects can be devastating, including psychosis and heart and lung problems, and it can cause extreme violence. It can be injected. What is the increase in HIV and hepatitis C among drug users who inject? We have not had an update recently.
	There should be far more education on the dangers and effects of drug use. The Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust has sent me a list of the prisons in which it provides drug treatment programmes and CARAT teams. That includes 20 establishments. This week, Styal Prison has been highlighted on television as having 80 per cent of inmates who are involved in some form of drug abuse. RAPt does not include Styal in its list of prisons for which it is providing treatment programmes. With so many problems in Styal, will the Minister tell noble Lords what plans there are to give some help, which seems to be needed urgently in that prison?
	The need for prevention and rehabilitation seems a bigger priority than classification, as all drugs are dangerous.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, first, I make my profuse apologies for not being here to hear the opening statement of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I was stuck in a local traffic jam which was impossible to get out of. I crave noble Lords' indulgence, and I shall limit my remarks accordingly.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and welcome the debate, because I feel that there are no easy or perfect answers to the question of classification of drugs. Prohibition on its own is no solution, as the USA found to its cost in relation to alcohol. But legislation also brings problems. Continuing with the alcohol analogy, we see binge drinking and alcohol-induced crime including drink-driving. So, even legalising does not eliminate the problem. If we must make a choice in that area, the Government are right to pursue a drug strategy—and I emphasise that word "strategy"—based on control.
	In legalising or reclassifying drugs, there is no guarantee that we will be abolishing crimes associated with them. Indeed, drug-induced crime will obviously still continue, as will people committing crime while under the influence of drugs. The painful truth is that if we were to reclassify and legalise, it would be a signal. I welcome, then, the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in relation to young people.
	Those of us playing our part in the continuation of the species, namely by having children, find it instructive to talk to them about what they know of drugs and who takes what within their peer group. I am going through the teenage phase a second time, since I enjoyed it so much; I have a 16 year-old son and an 18 year-old daughter. Smoking, despite all the warnings, still seems to be carried on, as if to say, "We don't care—that's tomorrow's problem". The same applies, perhaps to a lesser extent, to cannabis. They will sometimes take alcohol as well and combine all three, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. So, we are talking about trying to change attitudes by educating and influencing young people. It is no easy task that the Government have undertaken; nevertheless, I believe it is absolutely the right one.
	In the past, it was true to say that we could criticise government for failing to make available enough treatment centres or to spend enough money on the issue, but things are improving. If we look at the figures, the Government are increasing investment in drug treatment from £253 million in 2004–05 to £478 million. That is quite vital. Whether it is enough is still probably open to doubt, but we know that spending money on treatment is worth while. If a cost/benefit analysis is done, it definitely pays off.
	There is a vital need to do something in prisons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also said. I would say that it needs to be done in all prisons let alone the ones that have been rated. One would have to live in a state of some naiveté to think that there is not a drug problem in every prison. In dealing with that, it is vital that education and treatment are freely available. I hope that the Minister will focus rather more on that.
	I was also interested to note the recent decision taken not to control khat, the drug indulged in by means of leaf-chewing mainly by some members of the Somali and Yemeni population of this country. I have experience of that since large amounts of it were being sold not far from me. I am not sure that we made the right decision on that. Stories told by Somali mothers about the destructive effects of khat on their families or how young boys are introduced to its use cause concern. With drugs such as khat—indeed, with most drugs—it is interesting to look at the supply chain. Why is there more khat coming into this country than perhaps there used to be? One reason is that coffee farmers in Ethiopia and certain other countries find that the price of coffee really does not make growing it worth while. Therefore, they grow something that is worth while. We know that that is true also of heroin and a number of other drugs.
	So, broadly speaking, I welcome the efforts that the Government are making. We are heading in the right direction. I do not believe that reclassification would be a simple answer to an extremely complex problem. As for what happened with cannabis—and this is not to say that I necessarily deplore that decision; it was probably reasonable and pragmatic—whatever decision we take in these areas, the law of unintended consequences will always be there ready to haunt you.
	There are no easy solutions. However, the Government are heading broadly in the right direction. There is no cause for complacency even though some of the figures on hard-drugs seizures and the crime associated with drugs show a reduction. We know that we cannot afford to relax vigilance in this area. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. I repeat my apologies for arriving late, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this has been an excellent and, perhaps I may say, courageous debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for introducing it at a time when it has become clear that government drugs policy is not working and is wasting both taxpayers' money and the lives of many of our citizens and their families. I agree with the noble Lord's wise words about the need for change.
	I have no argument with the current drug classification system, apart from, possibly, the position of magic mushrooms there. However, the system is just one tool in our armoury, and should be treated as such. Like the noble Lord, I do not think that it is the system, but the UK's entire drugs policy, that needs review. Unfortunately, policy is being driven by political cowardice and the resulting tiered and judgmental punishment system, rather than all the evidence in favour of a better approach—treating drug addiction as a medical problem.
	As the spokesman on children and education on these Benches I have naturally looked at recent research on drug use and how it affects young people in particular. I was horrified to learn from the recent House of Commons Select Committee report on the effect of scientific advice on drugs policy that the Home Office has undertaken research that shows that among young offenders the main ages for experimenting with drugs are between 11 and 14, although those are not the ages of the highest use. Some 44 per cent of those said that they had committed crime in order to buy drugs, alcohol or tobacco. I find those figures significant, because they show that we need to put much more emphasis on drugs education in primary schools, not just secondary schools.
	Sadly, of the £1.5 billion the Government spend annually on the drugs problem, three-quarters is spent on enforcing drug laws, only 13 per cent on treatment and 12 per cent on education. Clearly that is the wrong way round, and other findings I will mention later reinforce that view. The £1.5 billion is a tiny percentage of the financial cost to the country of drug misuse, as other noble Lords have said.
	One of the aims of the 10-year drugs strategy launched by the Government in 1998 was to increase drugs education, and it is true that most primary and secondary schools have drugs policies. But many teachers lack confidence in teaching about such issues. There has been some success, given that a recent British Crime Survey and a European study show that the number of young drug users is falling for all drugs except cocaine. That is encouraging but not really good enough.
	The Government's "Talk to Frank" campaign website is all very well and has proved to be a valuable resource for children and their parents and teachers. However, the trouble with a website is that you have to proactively choose to go on to it. It is not "in your face" as some would put it. We need a totally different approach. I have noticed that drink-driving among the younger generation is no longer widespread because it is no longer cool. It is their peers who put pressure on young drinkers not to drive and vice versa. That indicates to me that we should look to how that has been achieved to obtain the same result in relation to drugs.
	Hard and effective messages about the damage drugs can do to young people's lives need to be driven home through their own methods of communication, so that they cannot help coming across them. We need to use the advertising breaks between the television programmes that they like to watch. The messages need to be shown at the cinema, in the magazines that teenagers and even children read—and even on their mobile phones. I do not mean the preachy kind of messages, I mean the kind that bring to life, using real people, the destruction and havoc that drugs can wreak on the lives of drug users and their parents. Let us not shrink from using emotions. The current series of ads against smoking that show teenagers angry and in tears at the prospect of losing their parents to lung cancer through smoking would surely encourage any parent to give up the dreaded weed. Similar techniques should be used to reach both children and adults about drugs.
	There has been a little bit of this in the past, but it has been discontinued, presumably because the cost of buying advertising time is great. But so is the cost of picking up the pieces when people become hard drug users, so the spend would be most worthwhile. Home Office research has proved that for every pound spent on treatment, at least £9 is saved in crime and health costs. I am not sure how easy it would be to make the same calculation about the cost-effectiveness of prevention through education, but I strongly suspect that the return would be even greater. The question we have to ask is: where should this money come from? I suggest that it should come from the discontinuance of some of the Government's current policies relating to drugs and a redirection of that money into treatment and education.
	The recent report of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, to the policy unit, published recently in The Guardian and placed by that newspaper on the web shows a number of interesting and extremely significant conclusions. It shows that each harmful drug user causes an average of £75,000 worth of harm every year—nearly £60,000 of which is crime harms and the rest health harms. These people commit 56 per cent of all crime. In a year about two-thirds of these people will come into contact with either treatment or the criminal justice system but at any one moment 80 per cent of them are not in treatment but are out in the streets committing crimes to support their habit and destroying their lives and those of their families. Why? The noble Lord showed that in 2003, although 60,000 chaotic drug users were convicted in the courts, only 6,000 were given a sentence that dealt with their drug use. The courts seem to be dealing with the offence and not the underlying cause. The report also said that although 50,000 such people went to prison that year, only 5,000 of them received any treatment for their drug use. This is because of a combination of short sentences and lack of capacity in the prisons.
	We have a revolving door into prison and ineffective treatment regimes. That is why the money should be spent on the most effective residential regimes and not those treatment programmes which are cheap and allow the Drug Action Teams to report large numbers in treatment rather than large numbers being effectively treated. I must declare an interest as a trustee of a residential drug and alcohol treatment charity called ADAPT, but my claims for the effectiveness of residential treatment are not biased but well proven.
	The noble Lord, Lord Birt, found no causal link between the availability of drugs and the incidence of drug use. Does that not show that all the money the police are spending trying to intercept drugs coming into the country is wasted? Should that money not be spent on education and treatment? We need to take away the markets of these evil people and re-open the debate about the decriminalisation of drugs. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others on this subject. We should spend the money saved on police enforcement on further taking away the markets through treatment and education.
	The noble Lord, Lord Birt, also recommended an increase in legal prescribing of hard drugs to chaotic users by medical practitioners. I agree with him and those, including the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who said that drug treatment should be regarded as a medical problem. This has long been Liberal Democrat policy. Most of the fatalities are among those who do not know the strength or concentration of the drugs they are taking. Doctors prescribing clean drugs would be able to direct users into treatment where possible and could ensure that the amounts and quality of the drugs were safe, thereby reducing fatalities considerably. Prescribing is expensive, but is it not better to prescribe £15,000 worth of heroin per year than have the addict go out on the streets and commit four times that amount of crime?
	We owe it to our children to protect them from the evils of drugs through effective and well thought out policies that are driven, not by prejudice or political expediency, but by facts. The report of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, are based on independently gathered facts. The conclusions that can be drawn from their findings are blindingly obvious, and have been outlined most effectively by many noble Lords today. The Government are culpable if they do not respond to them by radically changing the thrust of their policies and the way they spend our money, which is currently being so flagrantly wasted.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, has given us the opportunity to debate this subject and we are grateful to him for highlighting the terrible problem that is blighting our society. In my contribution I have not turned my mind to the legalisation of drugs, but concentrated on the situation in this country as of today.
	As a parent and a grandparent, I can imagine the horror and misery that must be felt by the whole family when a young person, after experimenting with what they thought was a harmless and mildly naughty drug, has to spend the rest of his or her life dealing with the consequences of such a bad decision. I am only sorry that I cannot be more optimistic about government policy in this area, but instead add my voice to those who have been disappointed by previous and current steps by the Government.
	We all know about the terrible effects that drugs, particularly cannabis, can inflict on users. New research is providing evermore evidence of the terrible mental and physical effects on cannabis users. These now include long-term illnesses such as schizophrenia, psychotic attacks and behavioural changes. Of course the great harm done by cannabis is not only felt by the user, nor is it just the drug's harmful medical effects that can blight people's lives. The networks of production and supply are a multi-million-pound business that funds all sorts of criminal activity. The sale and usage of the drug in a community leads to a neighbourhood becoming unsafe—or being perceived to be unsafe, which is in effect the same thing.
	In the same way as a neighbourhood, a young person can also be sucked into a downward spiral of drug use, even without experiencing any of the adverse medical effects that will just as effectively blight his and his family's life. It has been clear for a long time that cannabis is a gateway for yet more serious drugs. Young people who start to experiment with cannabis frequently move on to more harmful, addictive and potent substances. By experimenting with cannabis, they come into contact with suppliers who can sell them other drugs and are only too happy to encourage greater usage, and, by becoming accustomed to the idea that a nominally illegal substance is in fact harmless and usage is not punished by the police, they are understandably less deterred from trying other drugs.
	The Government's actions over the past few years have made the dangerous and demonstrably wrong belief that smoking cannabis is harmless and will not be punished by the police far more prevalent than it was, or needs to be. The Government frequently use the phrase "to send a clear message" to justify all sorts of knee-jerk reactions to current events. It is extraordinary that on this issue, where sending a message is of such critical importance, particularly to young and na-ve drug users, growers and suppliers, the Government fail to do even that.
	Drug classification is a clear example of an area where Parliament can make a real difference in reducing harmful behaviour. Classification is not merely a tool for police to use for prioritising man hours, or for the courts to use to impose sentences of varying severity, although these are obviously important aspects to consider when changing classification. It is also critical in indicating clearly to the public medical opinion on the repercussions resulting from cannabis use and the severity with which it is viewed by the law.
	Those wider effects of changes in the classification of a drug cannot be overestimated. The Metropolitan Police Authority's report on the effect of the reclassification of cannabis in 2004 showed confusion and misinformation among the public about the extent of the relaxation of penalties for cannabis possession, sale and production. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, some users, or potential users, even mistakenly believed that cannabis had been fully legalised, and many others believed that it had become of such low priority to the police that they would not be punished for flagrant use of it. It also had an impact on the public, who were reinforced in their belief that the police were unable and unwilling to tackle the low-level crime that blights communities and makes such an impact on people's lives.
	Much of this confusion could have been cleared up by a statement that cannabis was once again a class B drug. The new medical evidence, the clear indications of the negative effects of the earlier downgrading of cannabis, and the opinion of so many of the professionals who deal with its effects, all show the wisdom of that step. Instead the Government have suggested a bewildering array of future reviews and reforms to a system that is now so unclear and inconsistent that it is hard to know, even with all the briefings I have received, exactly why certain drugs are in one category and not another. The confusion in consistency and the incompleteness of the current system is also clear in the treatment of other worrying drugs.
	In particular, the refusal of the Government to place date-rape drugs, including GHB and Rohypnol, on the controlled list immediately is mystifying. The prevalence of those drugs and their use to abuse young women is now so widely appreciated that products such as special bottle stoppers that prevent the drugs being administered are sold to young people to take with them when they go out for an evening. Even the manufacturers of the drug have taken the problem so seriously that they now ensure that it will turn a drink to which it is added a bright colour. Yet the Government still refuse to make such drugs controlled substances. If ever there was a clear signal to would-be abusers that they are in no danger from the law, this is it.
	The Government's only solution to the mess on the ground is an educational campaign, as so many noble Lords have said. Obviously, I fully welcome this as a much-needed step to address the effects of the original re-classification of cannabis and the continuing confusion over the classification system. I also welcome the simultaneous ACPO campaign designed to increase police effectiveness against the production of cannabis. Both are needed to prevent the further spread of cannabis use among young people, either because of a failure to appreciate the dangers, or because of an all-too-clear understanding of the slim chances of being pursued by the police for their actions.
	It is hoped, too, that a thorough education campaign will help prevent future widespread usage of new drugs from taking hold in this country. An article in The Times yesterday on the subject not only listed some terrible statistics about the levels of cocaine and cannabis abuse in Britain, it highlighted the growing popularity, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of methamphetamine or crystal meth, as it is known. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government are not only addressing long-established substance abuse, but are anticipating future drug trends to prevent them ever taking hold here.
	I am pleased that the Government are planning a significant review of the classification system. I hope that that will then clear up the perplexity over the various penalties and punishments that numerous changes have created in the past few years. However, I cannot help thinking that many young lives have already been irretrievably affected by the downgrading of cannabis, and that this wasted opportunity to send a message to users about the danger of their activity will not be given to us or them again. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and can only hope that the promised public education campaign will produce extraordinary results without the support that the reclassifying of cannabis would have provided. At the end of this important debate, I now look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on tabling this topic for discussion. It has been a very interesting and thought-provoking debate. All the contributions have had great merit and have added something distinctive to the quality and calibre of the discussion that the subject of drug classification always brings forward in your Lordships' House. At times, the debate descended into entertainment. I was amused or enlightened to hear from my noble friend Lord Desai that he had enjoyed cannabis when a student. I am sure that he is not alone in that experience. I would have expected nothing else of him.
	However, I was a little worried about the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, finding it hard to pass up the opportunity of enjoying a spliff. I used to suffer far greater indignities and could never understand why I could not open my party seven at student parties and struggled to open the bottle of Hirondelle that always seem to be forced on me at the time.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we shall study that with interest and again I am grateful for the clarification. I had not meant to be so provocative at the outset of my speech.
	The views of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, are trenchant and well-known. It is fair to say that they do not coincide with those of Her Majesty's Government on approaches to drug matters. That is not to say that the debate which he and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, together have advanced with such conviction is not a debate worth having because I believe it is. It rightly focuses on a whole range of other concerns relating to the drugs issue.
	The objective of all noble Lords in this debate is, I suspect, at one with their concern and commitment to reducing the harm done by drugs to individuals, families, communities and society at large. I believe that is a shared objective. The path to that objective may differ, but there is no doubt that the goal is the same.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, made an eloquent speech on the merits of reducing drug controls on illegal drugs by introducing a greater degree of regulation. It is for me to expand on why the Government oppose that view for the moment. For now, I wish to focus on the classification system for drugs in this country and on the forthcoming review. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made an announcement to Parliament on 19 January on various drug matters, some of which, like the recent report on cannabis of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, have already been touched on in the debate.
	The primary purpose of the announcement was to make it clear that my right honourable friend accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that cannabis should remain a class C drug. However, in accepting that recommendation, he made clear his desire for the system of drug classification in the United Kingdom to be subject to a full review. That has been welcomed by many Members of your Lordships' House during this debate and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, acknowledged the importance of that review.
	The issue of cannabis is instructive here. The reclassification of cannabis in 2004 from class B to C was done, I believe, for all the right reasons and was based on the recommendations of the advisory council. However, many drew the wrong conclusions—that cannabis was no longer harmful and that in some way use was acceptable. The ensuing confusion may be partly the consequence in our view of an outdated classification system.
	The current system of classifying drugs into the three classes A, B and C on their relative harms was established by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are all aware that the patterns of drug misuse in the United Kingdom have changed quite dramatically in the past 35 years. It is in our view therefore appropriate that the system of control should now be reviewed to ensure that a clearer system is in place.
	The Government's review on classification will begin in a few weeks with the publication of a consultation paper. Until the contents of the consultation paper are more widely known, I cannot comment in detail about it. The Government are committed to engaging with our key stakeholders, whose views will be taken carefully into consideration. I should say at the outset that the consultation document will take forward an improved system of control; it will not be considering options on legalising drugs. The Government have been very firm in stating that position. They have made it clear on many occasions that they firmly oppose legalisation and I repeat that commitment today. Indeed, the point was made in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in this House on 26 January, when I clarified exactly our position.
	From his many contributions to these debates, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, does not support the system of prohibition of drugs. But I am bound to say that the Government have no intention of legalising or decriminalising the recreational use of controlled drugs in the manner that he has advocated. Our opposition was made crystal clear in our response to the 2002 Home Affairs Committee report, The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?. We said:
	"We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs".
	The Government's view is that the drugs that are subject to our misuse of drugs legislation are controlled for very good reasons. Many, such as heroin and crack cocaine, are highly addictive and harmful to health. We believe that it makes sense for them to remain controlled drugs whose unauthorised production, supply and possession are, and will remain, illegal.
	Legalisation of currently illegal drugs would run entirely counter to the Government's health and education messages. Our educational message, to young people in particular, is that all controlled drugs are harmful and that no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send a disastrously wrong message to the majority of young people, who do not take drugs, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse. The Government's objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs substantially. In our view, lessening controls would lead to increased consumption owing to more ready access to the supply of illicit substances. Increased use of drugs would mean a consequent drain on the health services and increased misery to individuals, families and communities. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they help to limit use and deter experimentation.
	While it is likely that there would be a reduction in acquisitive crime if drugs were legalised, it is important to remember that other crime is associated with drug misuse—for example, crimes committed while people are in a state of intoxication. The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals associated with drugs; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue and move on to other crimes or other aspects of the drugs world to seek their profits. Unilateral action by the Government towards legalisation would undoubtedly encourage drug tourism, as the Dutch have discovered. They are now exploring ways to tackle that problem.
	However, there is a more fundamental point here. Drugs are a global problem. Very often they are produced in one country and consumed in another. A co-ordinated international response is vital in our commitment to tackle drug misuse. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the UN convention on drug control and takes its responsibility seriously. Legalisation, even for a few drugs, would cause substantial damage to international relations and diminish the United Kingdom's standing among our international partners.
	That said, the Government accept that more needs to be done. In particular, this includes a far stronger emphasis on dealing with problematic drug users and the problems that they pose on reducing the harm from drug misuse to their own well being and that of others, given that they account for so much of the social and economic costs of drug misuse and drug-related crime, and on preventing young people, especially those most at risk, becoming the problematic users of the future. The Government are engaging those individuals causing most harm to themselves and to others in treatment, dealing with those who commit crime to fund a drug habit by providing a gateway into treatment at every point in the criminal justice system, and by investing in education and publicity campaigns to turn people away from drugs.
	It is our contention that the drug strategy is delivering tangible improvements in communities across the country. This debate is timely in looking further at the drug strategy. Another key objective is to keep drug users off the drugs that fuel crime by providing effective treatment services. I can report that there are now record numbers of drug misusers entering and—more importantly—staying in treatment. The figures show that the Government are making great strides in treatment provision: 89 per cent more people entered treatment in 2004–05 than in 1998; 27 per cent more people were in contact with structured treatment services in 2004–05 than in the previous year; and 75 per cent of individuals entering treatment in 2004–05 were retained or successfully completed treatment programmes, up by 20 per cent from 2002.
	As a number of noble Lords have commented, treatment works and is cost effective. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made that point. It is certainly the case that for every pound spent on treatment, at least £9.50 is saved in crime and related health costs.
	Drug-related deaths in England have fallen to their lowest level since 1998—from 1,571 in 1999 to some 1,388 in 2003. There may be some slight variation in figures since then, but the simple point is that drug-related deaths are falling and we are getting the numbers moving in the right direction. More drugs workers have been recruited; there are now some 10,000 and rising, as of September 2005, an increase of almost 50 per cent from March 2002. To critics of our strategy, I simply say that we have fairly rapidly increased the investment in this important aspect of countering the drugs problem or drugs menace.
	Drug-related crime has also fallen. Acquisitive crime fell by 12 per cent in the year to April 2005. In October 2005 more than 2,000 drug-misusing offenders entered treatment through the drug intervention programme. The Drugs Act 2005 brought into force the additional provisions on testing and arrest and on required assessment. These measures were successfully implemented across three forces in December 2005 and are to be implemented in all drug intervention programme intensive areas in England from the end of March this year. At the same time restriction on bail provisions will be rolled out to all local justice areas in England.
	Much consideration was given during the course of the debate to the issue of cannabis. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, in particular dwelt at some length on that. I know that this is an aspect of government policy where there is appreciable debate. As I mentioned in my introduction, the announcement of the review of the classification system was in the context of the Home Secretary's decision to keep cannabis as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
	Following a request from the Home Secretary in March last year, the advisory council produced an extremely comprehensive report on cannabis. One of the key conclusions was the stronger evidence of a link between taking cannabis and developing mental health problems. However, the overall risk remains very low. The advisory council stressed the significant harms of taking cannabis, particularly for those with existing mental health problems, such as schizophrenia. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, rightly said that there is a debate about the relative harm of cannabis use, and that debate will, no doubt, continue. However, the links to mental health problems and other harms from class B drugs, such as amphetamines, were considerably higher. In those circumstances, the advisory council concluded that the classification of class C was still appropriate.
	The council also considered claims of increased strength. It found some evidence of stronger varieties of skunk types of cannabis, typically grown by hydroponic methods, although more research is required. The advisory council reported that skunk varieties were still a minority of the cannabis taken in this country. It is certainly the case that claims that cannabis strengths are generally 10, 20 or 30 times higher than the 1980s are without any supportive evidence.
	One of the key priorities now is to deliver a large-scale education programme, for which noble Lords called in the debate, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The cannabis public information campaign will introduce a comprehensive package of education and public health measures. The aims are to provide effective education in school about the risks posed by cannabis and to send the right messages about the harms caused by cannabis. The campaign will target young people through the highly successful "Frank" campaign. The objective is to ensure that no one is left in any doubt about the harms and legal status of cannabis.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers made clear its support for the retention of cannabis as a class C drug. The Home Secretary and the police have agreed that there needs to be focused police effort to take strong action to reduce the supply of cannabis. Plans for taking that work forward are being developed and will be announced in coming weeks.
	Noble Lords are rightly concerned about the level of use of cannabis. Indeed, during the debate on the classification of cannabis in November 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, successfully moved an amendment to reflect his concern that reclassification of cannabis might lead to increased use. Evidence from the British Crime Survey clearly shows that cannabis use is steadily falling. In the past year, the use of cannabis by 16 to 24 year olds had fallen by 16 per cent since 1998. We do not see that a simply a by-product of reclassification. In addition, recent powers in the Drugs Act 2005 are strengthening the hand of the police: cannabis suppliers caught dealing on or in the vicinity of schools or using children as couriers will now receive tougher sentences from the courts.
	The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, referred to the misuse of khat and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue on 26 January. There was insufficient time on that occasion to set out fully the Government's position, but I am pleased to be able to do so this afternoon. The announcement on 19 January, to which reference has been made, contained a reference to the plant khat. Following a request from the then Home Office Minister, Caroline Flint, in February, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs began a study of khat misuse and whether there was a good case for making it a controlled drug. Khat is unlike other drugs because it is misused by only one or two ethnic groups, mainly the Somali community. There is little doubt that Somali mothers are particularly worried about it—the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to that. It is a very understandable concern. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs made several recommendations about its control that were related to improving the quality of education, prevention and treatment. The Government have agreed to the council's recommendations in full, including the recommendation not to make khat a controlled drug.
	Time is against me. There is much more that I could cover in this debate and in my summing up of its importance. Several questions were asked about particular issues, and I shall try to answer one or two of the more pertinent ones. There was particular concern about methylamphetamines, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, talked about. She thought that some pressure should be applied to raise the drug's level of classification. The advisory council found that it was right to leave its classification as a class B drug. We have accepted that recommendation for the time being. The view is that, although this drug is highly addictive—it is known as crystal meth or ice—there is a fear that it will come into this country and that its use will be much more prevalent. So far, the evidence does not suggest that that is the case, but we acknowledge that the position on that drug could change quite quickly, and it is obviously important that we need to monitor the situation very closely. The Home Secretary has asked to be advised later this year, and the position on its classification will be kept carefully under review. We believe that to be the right approach.
	A question was asked about rape drugs and their classification, which the advisory council is considering. It is worth pointing out that some of the quoted rape drugs already fall within the system of classification under class C. So we acknowledge and accept the importance of keeping that classification under view.
	We think that there is much to be commended in our strategy, and that we have made great progress. Evidence of declining drug use shows that that is the case. We recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, does, the importance and value of education. We continue to increase investment in the important area of education in schools, and I think that our record there is very encouraging, as the noble Baroness recognised. I gave several statistics earlier on the increased number of those in treatment, but it is clear that we must concentrate in future on increasing public awareness of the threat, the menace and the problems associated with all drugs.
	The review of classification will be very helpful to us in ensuring that each drug that presents a particular difficulty is in the right position. No doubt there will be passionate discussions on whether the classification system, when reviewed, is the right one. Whatever the outcome of the review, I want to make it absolutely clear from the Government Benches that we are committed to maintaining controls on drugs included in the international conventions to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. It is important that the message comes clearly from Government that we are intent on reforming classification but that we reject any suggestion that the legalisation, decriminalisation or regulation of illegal drugs can be a solution. Internationally, that is an accepted policy position. We seek to work with our partners to achieve common objectives, and I think that, from the levels of investment that we are now putting into it and the changes in public behaviour that are being achieved as a result, our drug strategy shows that we are on the right path. We continue to adopt that approach.
	I reject, in part, the friendly criticism made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that our policies are confused; I do not think that they are. Some of the statistics that I provided earlier clearly identify successes and suggest that we are going in the right direction. Indeed, they are built on policies that have been developed by successive governments. It is certainly right that we should review classification now. As I am sure the noble Baroness would willingly concede, a 35-year wait is a very long one, and we need to ensure that things are in the right place at the right time.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for providing us with the opportunity to have this debate today. It has been of great value. I have enjoyed it and have learnt a great deal from it, and I hope that others have, too.

Lord Snape: My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of the National Express Group, the parent company which will eventually operate the class 458 trains, subject to this affirmative order. The Minister's emollient phraseology nearly tempted me not to intervene at all. He dealt with the previous order with his typical concern and adequacy, and the House obviously accepted everything that he said, as did I.
	However, emollient though he might have been on this matter, I draw one or two items of concern to his attention and seek one or two assurances, on behalf not just of the Gatwick Express train operating company but also other train operating companies which might find themselves in the similar position of wishing to sub-lease fairly modern rolling stock in future.
	I remind the Minister and the House that the trains to which we are referring are caught under the terms of this legislation because they were delivered late to the original train operating company, South West Trains. They were designed prior to 1999, before the regulations came into being. We are discussing today a comparatively minor series of necessary alterations to the trains to make them comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.
	What my noble friend did not tell the House—there is, perhaps, no reason why he should, but I certainly intend to—is that this matter has been dragging on for some considerable time. These two trains—which, as the Minister rightly says, are not in daily service, but used as back-up—have been sitting in the Stewarts Lane railway depot for the past six months, waiting for this House and the Department of Transport to pass this affirmative resolution. I happen to think that such a procedure is nonsensical to say the least. Had the Gatwick Express train company never bothered to introduce back-up trains, it could have carried on using the mark 2 rolling stock with slam doors electrically hauled or propelled, none of which would have been affected by these particular regulations, because those trains were introduced into service a long time before 1999. The fact that the train operating company behaved in the way it did, and sought to sub-lease these vehicles, means, as I have indicated, that until your noble Lordships' House has gone through this affirmative procedure, the trains will sit in a siding at Stewarts Lane.
	I do not know whether your Lordships feel that is a sensible way of doing things, but I do not and I do not know anyone connected to the railway industry who does. In opening the debate, my noble friend talked about the work this Government have done to make life better for disabled people. I support and applaud that. But we are talking here about a number of comparatively minor alterations needed to fairly modern rolling stock, none of which amounts to a hill of beans. They would all be quite expensive if done just for two trains out of the total fleet of class 458 trains, but none of them is particularly serious. For example, we are talking—as we did last time exemptions were sought for similar rolling stock—about the internal display being only 31 millimetres high, instead of 35 millimetres high, as laid down by the regulations.
	I repeat: these trains were designed prior to the regulations appearing in the first place. We are not talking about an unthinking or uncaring government or train operating company introducing rolling stock that is totally unfit for use by disabled people. These are comparatively minor things, such as the additional pressure needed to open internal doors, and the redesign necessary to the toilets in order that people can leave a wheelchair, use the toilet and return to the wheelchair. These are significant, but scarcely earth shattering matters, but for six months these trains have lain in a siding, waiting for your noble Lordships to pass this particular procedure.
	According to the explanatory memorandum, this is the first such order to be subject to draft affirmative resolution. I know the Department for Transport is currently developing draft regulations and expects to consult later this year. I understand that, until regulations are in force, all exemption orders remain subject to draft affirmative resolution procedure. My first question to my noble friend is: why have we had to wait so long for the opportunity to debate this matter?
	Secondly, how long will this exemption last? My noble friend indicated that the Gatwick Express Company's existing franchise will last until 2011. Immediately, there are two points to consider here. First, these trains are off-lease in February 2007, when the original lease granted to South West Trains expires. Do we need, some time after that date, to adopt this procedure all over again? If that is the case, does my noble friend think that is a sensible way of going about things? Can he give us an assurance today that these trains will not spend another six months in the Stewarts Lane sidings, while the business managers of your noble Lordships' House decide whether to put on a similar order in future?
	I remind my noble friend that the future of the Gatwick Express TOC is by no means assured. There is a feeling, which was first expressed by the now defunct SRA, that having these trains, modern though they may be, passing non-stop from Victoria to Gatwick Airport, clogs up the former southern main line. At various times of the day, when commuters are standing at various stations waiting to get to and from the city, these trains pass with lots of empty seats. There is a move afoot to extend the train route at least as far as Three Bridges, which would of course mean considerable changes to the existing TOC—and, in the opinion of most of the railway press, the abolition of the Gatwick Express TOC. I presume, though my noble friend may correct me if I am wrong, that that would mean yet another affirmative order for whoever picks up those trains to use as back-up. I have not been here long enough to know who is responsible for the business in your Lordships' House, but it sounds as if he or she will be fairly busy in the months and years to come, arranging affirmative legislation, if that is how we are to proceed, to take care of all these anomalies.
	I would be grateful—and I suspect that many who take an interest in these matters outside the House would be grateful—for some clarification. Basically, why has it taken so long to debate this matter? How long will the exemption actually last—until 2007 or 2011? Bearing in mind that the nature of the Gatwick Express is likely to change fairly dramatically, do we need further affirmative legislation to keep these trains in service? Would my noble friend agree that the whole exercise has not really commended itself to the railway fraternity at large?
	In closing, I suggest that when we look at how these matters are decided in future, while understandably concerning ourselves with the rights and abilities of people with disabilities to use railway rolling stock, we reflect that what we have created is a bureaucratic nightmare. We have, and are likely to continue to have, lots of modern trains up and down the country that are not in service and not carrying passengers but are waiting for your Lordships to pass some sort of affirmative legislation. Perhaps my noble friend can think some more verses to the old Flanders and Swann song, along the lines of, "It all makes work for the bureaucrats to do".

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will not expect me to take quite the pessimistic view that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, takes on the issue. I want to reassure him that we are concerned to introduce a framework for the orders, after consultation, in which we can minimise the amount of valuable time in which the House needs to be occupied by the orders and the demands of their necessary documentation. I give him reassurance that we are addressing that issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked me the major question in his characteristic way in terms that I was readily able to comprehend and answer. I am not so confident that I am able to follow my noble friend Lord Snape down the intricacies of his contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will know that we take some pride in having 4,400 vehicles compliant with the Act. We see that in the construction of all new vehicles that they are inevitably obliged to comply with the Act, while as other vehicles come in for refurbishment they too are obliged to become compliant with it. So we expect the number of vehicles becoming compliant to double over the next 10 years.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will know that on the deadline that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I debated at considerable length during passage of the Bill—when, I must add, the Conservative Front Bench also played its part—we undertook that all railway vehicles would be compliant by 1 January 2020. I recall the Liberal Democrat spokesman being particularly keen for it to be done four years early—but then they are conspicuous spenders of both public and private resources on these matters. Whether the Conservative Front Bench was equally profligate on that occasion I cannot now recall, so I shall not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, of that. Certainly he was not at that time in his place with regard to the legislation. So 1 January 2020 is our end date for full compliance.
	Therefore, I must address what is really a debate between the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with his keen and proper advocacy of the needs of the disabled and for as many vehicles as possible to be compliant, and my noble friend Lord Snape, who indicated the difficulties for the industry—with which I have some sympathy. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right in that any departure from the requirements of the Act and the regulations marginally—perhaps only marginally—disadvantage the disabled. I reassure the noble Lord that what the noble Lord, Lord Snape, said was right; the kind of deficiencies on the two trains that would be deployed on the Gatwick Express are marginal.
	My noble friend Lord Snape indicated that one of the weaknesses is that the internal visual announcements are smaller than required—we specify not less than 35 millimetres high and they are only 32 millimetres high. The internal door controls are not illuminated; there is no illumination of steps; the handrails of external doors are not positioned as required; and some of the door controls are not positioned at the regulated height. All of those are factors that disabled people may well struggle with and we want disabled people to be able to use these trains like any other passenger.
	So there is an element of providing dispensation, but I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that my noble friend Lord Snape is right—that this is on the margin of inconvenience and that these are substitute trains. They come into play only when the Gatwick Express is not able fully to meet demand due to difficulties with its other trains.
	My noble friend Lord Snape asked me about some larger issues. First, he berated me for the time it has taken to produce the order. I seem to recall that in a previous life he had some responsibility for the organisation of parliamentary business in the other place. Whether he used to originate that business or merely process it, I cannot recall, but as a Whip he would have taken a keen interest in how we organised parliamentary business. He knows that it is not easy to find time for regulations. We have to work within the framework of the limited time that we have available and I can tell the noble Lord that we would have liked to have dealt with the order earlier, but we have to join our place in the queue. He will also recognise that we had to undertake significant consultation. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, we want to establish a framework which will not mean a huge amount of work either for those seeking to comply with the regulations or for ourselves in seeking to enforce them and in processing them through this House and another place.
	We want to obtain regularity on this issue so that it does not become an excessive burden on all concerned. But my noble friend will recognise that we have a fair bit of work to do on this. The easier part is applying the regulations to new build. That is obvious enough, although, as my noble friend will be aware, that is not always the easiest exercise and consumes an enormous amount of experts' time.
	If we are to tackle these issues effectively, we need time to get the orders right. I accept my noble friend's main thrust—that this order has been some time coming. It is therefore inconvenient to the operators. We need a structure to deal with this issue in future, because there will be other necessary exemptions. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is also right: there will be movement of trains. It is bound to decrease over time because all new build is compliant and operators are not neglectful of the Act and the requirements. Where they can, they will effect the necessary changes as time goes on. We will therefore have a steady rate of progress. But I accept the comments of my noble friend Lord Snape that these things need to be addressed in a forthright manner and we need to make as rapid progress as we can. I am aware of the points that he makes—that train operators want to be compliant with the Act and will do their best and that all new build will be certain to meet these requirements. In seeking to do that train operators have a challenging time ahead. With certain trains there is quite a lot of work to be done and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, it raises the issue of exemptions when trains are moved round the country.
	I would like to convey to the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Snape, that we are fully cognisant of that issue. Both are well versed in the issues of the rail industry and they will know that it is not in the Government's interests to put undue burdens on train operators. But, equally clearly—and I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this front—there is no way in which this Government would in any way, shape or form resile from the obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 which we are proud to have passed. We recognise the achievements of the original Act under the previous administration in 1995. We want as many rail vehicles to be fully compliant as soon as possible. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for raising the issue of municipal waste disposal. There may not be many listening to us as we speak, but I suspect that what is said in this short debate will be followed closely by rather more people than we might anticipate.
	The issue is, of course, very important and, if I may say to the noble Lord, this is a very timely juncture at which to raise it. As has been pointed out, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare has recently launched a consultation paper on the review of England's waste strategy. I must gently take the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to task. He complains that questions are being asked in a consultation paper. I am afraid that I think that the purpose of consultation papers is to ask questions so that those who reply to the consultation—we hope that they will be many—can give their views to the questions that we have posed helpfully, we hope, to enable us to advance our policy further. I do not think that he should complain about questions being asked in a consultation paper.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, talked about local authorities having a significant part to play. That is absolutely right. Central and local government share a collective challenge in moving towards more sustainable waste management. Since our first waste strategy was published in 2000, we have made great strides in doubling recycling and composting of household waste and significantly reducing the proportion of waste that is landfilled. In 2004–05, local authorities in England sent nearly 23 per cent of household waste for recycling or composting, which means that we are well on our way to meeting this year's target of 25 per cent. We have started the process of moving this country's performance on waste up to the level of our European neighbours. The shift away from landfill to more sustainable alternatives also, of course, brings us important environmental benefits. However, the noble Lord is right to say that there is a great deal more to do. We need to continue on this path of sending less waste to landfill and seeing more of it recycled. This is why as part of our revised waste strategy we are proposing more ambitious recycling targets.
	Equally important is reducing the amount of waste that we produce in the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. We must ensure that increasing levels of prosperity do not, as they tend to, lead to ever-increasing quantities of waste. So far, frankly, we have made only limited progress in breaking this link. We need to encourage industry to produce and the public to consume in a manner that creates less waste.
	If we are to achieve a truly sustainable economy, we need a shift in our thinking so that we begin to treat waste as a resource. Rather than automatically disposing of materials that have been used once, we need to make the most of opportunities to reuse or convert, including by recovering energy.
	As the Biomass Task Force report said last year, we are not making full use of the resources that are readily available. That is why our consultation propose is making proper use of new investment to recover energy from waste as an alternative to landfill—not at the expense of practical waste prevention and recycling, but by seeing a more modest growth than in original estimates.
	Waste Strategy 2000 set a target for 67 per cent recovery of waste by 2015 for recycling, composting, energy from waste and digestion, with at least 33 per cent composting and recycling. New proposals are for the same overall target of 67 per cent recovery by 2015, but with much higher levels—namely, 45 per cent—of recycling and composting.
	Moving away from landfill to a more diverse mix of waste management practices is already making waste management a much more complex task. Treating waste as a resource will require much greater co-operation between a wider group of players. Therefore, partnership working between local authorities will become key to ensuring delivery. Local authorities will need to co-ordinate their activities if they are to move away from landfill while providing high-quality and cost-effective waste services.
	There are already numerous examples of local authorities developing joint working. For example, Shropshire's waste partnership, whose constituent authorities have taken the step of signing up to become a single, virtual waste authority. The Government hope that the process of producing joint municipal waste management strategies will enable other local authorities to identify better ways of working together.
	There are also efficiencies to be gained through local authorities and industry working together more closely. A new consolidated set of packaging regulations—again, a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, touched upon—came into force recently. It set revised packaging waste recovery and recycling targets for packaging producers to meet between now and 2008—when the next packaging directive targets have to be set—and indicative targets for the year after, 2009, and for 2010. We expect that the producers will have to ensure that more packaging waste—

Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, the heart of the problem is not the disposal of the waste by the municipal authorities but discouraging the use of increasingly elaborate and expensive packaging materials—increasing in a quantity sense too. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the Minister mentioned this, but that has to be tackled first, does it not?

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past five o'clock.
	Thursday, 2 March 2006.